<figure><img src="image_22.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 20.** Constraints on the galaxy weak lensing nuisance parameters in DES-Y3 tomographic bin 4 (0.87 < z < 2.0). The DES-Y3 prior used in the main analysis is shown as unfilled contours and is consistent with the filled contours obtained with fixed cosmological parameters but broad priors on nuisance parameters.</figcaption></figure>

contamination. We performed the initial analysis with the blinding procedure described in Section 3.2.1. After the data vector passed the null tests and we confirmed that the analysis pipeline recovered the unbiased input values from simulations, we unblinded the catalogue and the parameters inferred from the unblinded data vector.

We used this $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ measurement to infer the matter density parameter ($\Omega_m$) and the amplitude of fluctuations in the matter distribution ($S_8$). We inferred $\Omega_m = 0.338_{-0.17}^{+0.05}$, and $S_8 = 0.782 \pm 0.059$. Our main result is shown in Fig. 17. These values were inferred using informative but well motivated priors on the observational and astrophysical nuisance parameters, which were marginalized while inferring $\Omega_m$ and $S_8$. We investigated the validity of the priors on galaxy IA parameters by significantly relaxing them and checking the consistency of the resulting posteriors. As depicted in Fig. 13, we found the posteriors with this broader IA prior are consistent with those with the fiducial IA priors but have relatively weak constraints on the cosmological parameters. We also assessed the consistency between the inference obtained using various subsets of the data, shown in Fig. 19. Our results are statistically consistent with many recent cosmic shear studies, including those utilizing the DES-Y3 data alone (Abbott et al. 2022; Doux et al. 2022, Secco et al. 2022, Amon et al. 2022) and cross-correlation with SPT and Planck CMB lensing (Chang et al. 2023). Furthermore, our results are in agreement with $S_8$ inferred using KiDS data (Heymans et al. 2021), although slightly higher than the value inferred using the cross-correlation with ACT-DR4 BOSS North and Planck CMB lensing (Robertson et al. 2021). However, we note that these differences fall within ~1.4σ, indicating a relatively minor deviation. We summarized this comparison in Fig. 18.

Measurements of the clustering of matter from combinations of CMB and optical weak lensing are rapidly growing in precision, with the highest-yet SNR achieved being that of SPT+Planck×DES-Y3 at $18\sigma$ (Chang et al. 2023). We note that this analysis is carried out on a substantially larger sky area of 3920 deg$^2$ than the 450 deg$^2$ area of the ACT D56 region considered in this work. For a given sky area, comparatively higher SNR obtained in this work is owing to the lower $\kappa_C$ reconstruction noise of the ACT D56 observations. We

find the $S_8$ inferred in these two studies in statistical agreement, as depicted in Fig. 18. Recently, the ACT Collaboration has completed an analysis of the reconstructed CMB lensing map using the DR6 sky area of 9400 deg$^2$, which overlaps with nearly the entire DES-Y3 survey footprint (MacCrann et al. 2023; Madhavacheril et al. 2023; Qu et al. 2023). These data will provide a great opportunity to continue the work done here by performing cross-correlation with various probes of LSS, including galaxy lensing and galaxy density (Marques et al. 2023). Further on the horizon, correlations between the Simons Observatory (Ade et al. 2019) and CMB-S4 (Abazajian et al. 2016) lensing maps with shear data from the Euclid satellite (Amendola et al. 2018) and the Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (Ivezić et al. 2019) will be even more precise. These analyses, with their higher statistical precision, will need to be carried out with more careful theoretical modelling of astrophysical effects of baryons and galaxy IA along with the modelling of observational systematics (see, e.g. DES Collaboration & KiDS Collaboration 2023) than required for the data analysed in this work.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SS acknowledges support from the Beus Centre for Cosmic Foundations. IH, EC, SG, and HJ acknowledge support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No. 849169). CS acknowledges support from the Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID) through FONDECYT grant number 11191125 and BASAL project FB210003. KM acknowledges support from the National Research Foundation of South Africa. GSF acknowledges support through the Isaac Newton Studentship, the Helen Stone Scholarship at the University of Cambridge, and from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No. 851274). KM acknowledges support from the National Research Foundation of South Africa. LBN acknowledges support from the Simons Foundation. JCH acknowledges support from NSF grant AST-2108536, NASA grants 21-ATP21-0129 and 22-ADAP22-0145, the Sloan Foundation, and the Simons Foundation. SKC acknowledges support from NSF award AST-2001866. KMH acknowledges NSF award number 1815887. OD acknowledges support from SNSF Eccellenza Professorial Fellowship (No. 186879).

We acknowledge the support of the Supercomputing Wales project, which is partly funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) via Welsh Government. We thank Agnès Ferté and Jessie Muir for help loading MultiNest chains.

Support for ACT was through the U.S. National Science Foundation through awards AST-0408698, AST-0965625, and AST-1440226 for the ACT project, as well as awards PHY-0355328, PHY-0855887 and PHY-1214379. Funding was also provided by Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania, and a Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) award to UBC. ACT operated in the Parque Astronómico Atacama in northern Chile under the auspices of the Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID). The development of multichroic detectors and lenses was supported by NASA grants NNX13AE56G and NNX14AB58G. Detector research at NIST was supported by the NIST Innovations in Measurement Science programme. Computing for ACT was performed using the Princeton Research Computing resources at Princeton University, the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Centre (NERSC), and the Niagara supercomputer at the SciNet HPC Consortium.
Funding for the DES Projects has been provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Ministry of Science and Education of Spain, the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the National Centre for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago, the Centre for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University, the Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas A&M University, Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico and the Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and the Collaborating Institutions in the DES.

The Collaborating Institutions are Argonne National Laboratory, the University of California at Santa Cruz, the University of Cambridge, Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas-Madrid, the University of Chicago, University College London, the DES-Brazil Consortium, the University of Edinburgh, the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zürich, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Institut de Ciències de l'Espai (IEEC/CSIC), the Institut de Física d'Altes Energies, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München and the associated Excellence Cluster Universe, the University of Michigan, NSF's NOIRLab, the University of Nottingham, The Ohio State University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Portsmouth, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University, the University of Sussex, Texas A&M University, and the OzDES Membership Consortium.

Based in part on observations at CTIO at NSF's NOIRLab (NOIR-Lab Prop. ID 2012B-0001; PI: J. Frieman), which is managed by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.

The DES data management system is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers AST-1138766 and AST-1536171. The DES participants from Spanish institutions are partially supported by MICINN under grants ESP2017-89838, PGC2018-094773, PGC2018-102021, SEV-2016-0588, SEV-2016-0597, and MDM-2015-0509, some of which include ERDF funds from the European Union. IFAE is partially funded by the CERCA programme of the Generalitat de Catalunya. Research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) including ERC grant agreements 240672, 291329, and 306478. We acknowledge support from the Brazilian Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia (INCT) do e-Universo (CNPq grant no. 465376/2014-2).

This manuscript has been authored by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under Contract Number DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics.

## 9 DATA AVAILABILITY

The data underlying this article are available in a GitHub repository at https://github.com/itrharrison/actdr4kappa-x-desy3gamma-data, in the Zenodo repository https://zenodo.org/records/8346047, and has been made available on the LAMBDA data service at https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/act/actpol produf table.html.

## REFERENCES

* Abazajian K. N. et al., 2016, preprint (arXiv:1610.02743)

* Abbott T. M. C. et al., 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 043526

* Abbott T. M. C. et al., 2021, ApJS, 255, 20

* Abbott T. M. C. et al., 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023520

* Abbott T. M. C. et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 023531

* Abdalla E. et al., 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 34, 49

* Ade P. et al., 2019, JCAP, 2019, 056

* Aiola S. et al., 2020, JCAP, 2020, 047

* Alonso D., Sanchez J., Slosar A., LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4127

* Amendola L. et al., 2018, Living Reviews in Relativity, 21, 2

* Amon A., Efstathiou G., 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5355

* Amon A. et al., 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023514

* Amon A. et al., 2023, MNRAS, 518, 477

* Anderson T. W., 2003, An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ

* Asgari M. et al., 2021, A&A, 645, 104

* Baxter E. J. et al., 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 023508

* Bridle S., King L., 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 444

* Calabrese E., Slosar A., Melchiorri A., Smoot G. F., Zahn O., 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 123531

* Castro P. G., Heavens A. F., Kitching T. D., 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 023516

* Chang C. et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 023530

* Chisari N. E. et al., 2019, ApJS, 242, 2

* Choi S. K. et al., 2020, JCAP, 2020, 045

* Cordero J. P. et al., 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2170

* DES Collaboration, Kilo-Degree Survey Collaboration, 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 36

* Darwish O. et al., 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2250

* Das S., Errard J., Spergel D., 2013, preprint (arXiv:1311.2338)

* Doux C. et al., 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1942

* Dutcher D. et al., 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 022003

* Favole G., Granett B. R., Silva Lafaurie J., Sapone D., 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5833

* Flaugher B. et al., 2015, AJ, 150, 150

* Friedrich O. et al., 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 023508

* Friedrich O. et al., 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3125

* Gatti M. et al., 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4312

* Górski K. M., Hivon E., Banday A. J., Wandelt B. D., Hansen F. K., Reinecke M., Bartelmann M., 2005, ApJ, 622, L759

* Gu S., Dor M.-A., van Waerbeke L., Asgari M., Mead A., Tröster T., Yan Z., 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4871

* Hall A., Taylor A., 2014, MNRAS, 443, 119

* Hand N. et al., 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 062001

* Harnois-Déraps J. et al., 2016, MNRAS, 460, 434

* Harnois-Déraps J. et al., 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1619

* Hartlap J., Simon P., Schneider P., 2007, A&A, 464, 399

* Hartley W. G. et al., 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3547

* Heymans C. et al., 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1323

* Heymans C. et al., 2021, A&A, 646, 140

* Hikage C., Takada M., Hamana T., Spergel D., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 65

* Hilbert S., Hartlap J., Schneider P., 2011, A&A, 536, 85

* Hirata C. M., Mandelbaum R., Ishak M., Seljak U., Nichol R., Pimbblet K. A., Ross N. P., Wake D., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1197

* Hivon E., Górski K. M., Netterfield C. B., Crill B. P., Prunet S., Hansen F., 2002, ApJ, 567, L2

* Howlett C., Lewis A., Hall A., Challinor A., 2012, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2012, 027

* Hu W., Okamoto T., 2002, ApJ, 574, L566

* Huff E., Mandelbaum R., 2017, preprint (arXiv:1702.06200)

* Huterer D., Takada M., Bernstein G., Jain B., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 101

* Ivezić Ž. et al., 2019, ApJ, 873, L111

* Johnston H. et al., 2019, A&A, 624, 30

* Kaiser N., 1992, ApJ, 388, L272

* Kirk D. et al., 2016, MNRAS, 459, 21
Funding for the DES Projects has been provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Ministry of Science and Education of Spain, the Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the National Centre for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Kavli Institute of Cosmological Physics at the University of Chicago, the Centre for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics at the Ohio State University, the Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy at Texas A&M University, Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos, Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico and the Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and the Collaborating Institutions in the DES.

The Collaborating Institutions are Argonne National Laboratory, the University of California at Santa Cruz, the University of Cambridge, Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas-Madrid, the University of Chicago, University College London, the DES-Brazil Consortium, the University of Edinburgh, the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zürich, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the Institut de Ciències de l'Espai (IEEC/CSIC), the Institut de Física d'Altes Energies, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Ludwig-Maximilians Universität München and the associated Excellence Cluster Universe, the University of Michigan, NSF's NOIRLab, the University of Nottingham, The Ohio State University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Portsmouth, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford University, the University of Sussex, Texas A&M University, and the OzDES Membership Consortium.

Based in part on observations at CTIO at NSF's NOIRLab (NOIR-Lab Prop. ID 2012B-0001; PI: J. Frieman), which is managed by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.

The DES data management system is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Numbers AST-1138766 and AST-1536171. The DES participants from Spanish institutions are partially supported by MICINN under grants ESP2017-89838, PGC2018-094773, PGC2018-102021, SEV-2016-0588, SEV-2016-0597, and MDM-2015-0509, some of which include ERDF funds from the European Union. IFAE is partially funded by the CERCA programme of the Generalitat de Catalunya. Research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) including ERC grant agreements 240672, 291329, and 306478. We acknowledge support from the Brazilian Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia (INCT) do e-Universo (CNPq grant no. 465376/2014-2).

This manuscript has been authored by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under Contract Number DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics.

## 9 DATA AVAILABILITY

The data underlying this article are available in a GitHub repository at https://github.com/itrharrison/actdr4kappa-x-desy3gamma-data, in the Zenodo repository https://zenodo.org/records/8346047, and has been made available on the LAMBDA data service at https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/act/actpol produf table.html.

## REFERENCES

* Abazajian K. N. et al., 2016, preprint (arXiv:1610.02743)

* Abbott T. M. C. et al., 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 043526

* Abbott T. M. C. et al., 2021, ApJS, 255, 20

* Abbott T. M. C. et al., 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023520

* Abbott T. M. C. et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 023531

* Abdalla E. et al., 2022, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 34, 49

* Ade P. et al., 2019, JCAP, 2019, 056

* Aiola S. et al., 2020, JCAP, 2020, 047

* Alonso D., Sanchez J., Slosar A., LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration, 2019, MNRAS, 484, 4127

* Amendola L. et al., 2018, Living Reviews in Relativity, 21, 2

* Amon A., Efstathiou G., 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5355

* Amon A. et al., 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023514

* Amon A. et al., 2023, MNRAS, 518, 477

* Anderson T. W., 2003, An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ

* Asgari M. et al., 2021, A&A, 645, 104

* Baxter E. J. et al., 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 023508

* Bridle S., King L., 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 444

* Calabrese E., Slosar A., Melchiorri A., Smoot G. F., Zahn O., 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 123531

* Castro P. G., Heavens A. F., Kitching T. D., 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 023516

* Chang C. et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 023530

* Chisari N. E. et al., 2019, ApJS, 242, 2

* Choi S. K. et al., 2020, JCAP, 2020, 045

* Cordero J. P. et al., 2022, MNRAS, 511, 2170

* DES Collaboration, Kilo-Degree Survey Collaboration, 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 36

* Darwish O. et al., 2021, MNRAS, 500, 2250

* Das S., Errard J., Spergel D., 2013, preprint (arXiv:1311.2338)

* Doux C. et al., 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1942

* Dutcher D. et al., 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 022003

* Favole G., Granett B. R., Silva Lafaurie J., Sapone D., 2021, MNRAS, 505, 5833

* Flaugher B. et al., 2015, AJ, 150, 150

* Friedrich O. et al., 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 023508

* Friedrich O. et al., 2021, MNRAS, 508, 3125

* Gatti M. et al., 2021, MNRAS, 504, 4312

* Górski K. M., Hivon E., Banday A. J., Wandelt B. D., Hansen F. K., Reinecke M., Bartelmann M., 2005, ApJ, 622, L759

* Gu S., Dor M.-A., van Waerbeke L., Asgari M., Mead A., Tröster T., Yan Z., 2023, MNRAS, 525, 4871

* Hall A., Taylor A., 2014, MNRAS, 443, 119

* Hand N. et al., 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 062001

* Harnois-Déraps J. et al., 2016, MNRAS, 460, 434

* Harnois-Déraps J. et al., 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1619

* Hartlap J., Simon P., Schneider P., 2007, A&A, 464, 399

* Hartley W. G. et al., 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3547

* Heymans C. et al., 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1323

* Heymans C. et al., 2021, A&A, 646, 140

* Hikage C., Takada M., Hamana T., Spergel D., 2011, MNRAS, 412, 65

* Hilbert S., Hartlap J., Schneider P., 2011, A&A, 536, 85

* Hirata C. M., Mandelbaum R., Ishak M., Seljak U., Nichol R., Pimbblet K. A., Ross N. P., Wake D., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1197

* Hivon E., Górski K. M., Netterfield C. B., Crill B. P., Prunet S., Hansen F., 2002, ApJ, 567, L2

* Howlett C., Lewis A., Hall A., Challinor A., 2012, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2012, 027

* Hu W., Okamoto T., 2002, ApJ, 574, L566

* Huff E., Mandelbaum R., 2017, preprint (arXiv:1702.06200)

* Huterer D., Takada M., Bernstein G., Jain B., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 101

* Ivezić Ž. et al., 2019, ApJ, 873, L111

* Johnston H. et al., 2019, A&A, 624, 30

* Kaiser N., 1992, ApJ, 388, L272

* Kirk D. et al., 2016, MNRAS, 459, 21
## APPENDIX A: RESULTS WITH ACT-ONLY DATA VECTOR

We also perform all of our analysis with the $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$ data vector containing only ACT-DR4 data (i.e. no Planck data and no tSZ deprojection). Fig. A1 shows the ACT-only data vector and the best fit $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$. With ACT-only $\kappa_C$, we measure $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$ at the SNR of 6.6, which is slightly less than the ACT+Planck SNR = 7.1. ACT-only $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$ passes the null tests similar to the ACT+Planck $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$ with PTE = 0.67 for the B-mode null test and PTE = 0.43 for the rotation null test. The null test bandpowers are depicted in Fig. A2.

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A1.** Similar to Section 7, but for ACT-only $\kappa_C$. The points with the error bar show $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$ bandpowers with ACT-DR4 $\kappa_C$ and DES-Y3 shear for four DES-Y3 redshift bins. Error bars are the square root of the diagonal of the covariance matrix. $z_{\text{mean}}$ is the mean redshift of the source galaxy distribution. The curves show the best fit theory $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A2.** Similar to Fig. 10, but for ACT-only data. Top: The power spectrum between $\kappa_C$ and the B-mode of the shear ($C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma B}$), which is expected to be consistent with zero. Bottom: The correlation between $\kappa_C$ and the E-mode of the shear map ($C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa[\text{rot}]\gamma E}$) obtained from the catalogue in which ellipticities are randomly rotated.</figcaption></figure>

Kitching T. D., Deshpande A. C., Taylor P. L., 2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 14

Krolewski A., Ferraro S., White M., 2021, JCAP, 2021, 028

Lewis A., 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 103529

Lewis A., Bridle S., 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 103511

Lewis A., Challinor A., Lasenby A., 2000, ApJ, 538, L473

Lewis A. et al., 2022, cmbant/CAMB: 1.3.5, Zenodo, available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6137931

Limber D. N., 1953, ApJ, 117, L134

Liu J., Hill J. C., 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 063517

LoVerde M., Afshordi N., 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 123506

MacCrann N. et al., 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3371

MacCrann N. et al., 2023, preprint (arXiv:2304.05196)

Madhavacheril M. S., Hill J. C., 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 023534

Madhavacheril M. S. et al., 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 023534

Madhavacheril M. S. et al., 2023, preprint (arXiv:2304.05203)

Mallaby-Kay M. et al., 2021, ApJS, 255, 11

Marques G. A., Liu J., Huffenberger K. M., Colin Hill J., 2020, ApJ, 904, L182

Marques G. A. et al., 2024, JCAP, 2024, 033

Mead A. J., Peacock J. A., Heymans C., Joudaki S., Heavens A. F., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1958

Miyatake H. et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123517

More S. et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123520

Myles J. et al., 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4249

Namikawa T. et al., 2019, ApJ, 882, L62

Nicola A., García-García C., Alonso D., Dunkley J., Ferreira P. G., Slosar A., Spergel D. N., 2021, JCAP, 2021, 067

Norberg P., Baugh C. M., Gaztañaga E., Croton D. J., 2009, MNRAS, 396, 19

Omori Y. et al., 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 043501

Omori Y. et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 023529

Osborne S. J., Hanson D., Doré O., 2014, JCAP, 2014, 024

Planck Collaboration, 2020, A&A, 641, 6

Poulin V., Bernal J. L., Kovetz E. D., Kamionkowski M., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 123538

Qu F. J. et al., 2023, preprint (arXiv:2304.05202)

Robertson N. C. et al., 2021, A&A, 649, 146

Rogers K. K., Hložek R., Laguë A., Ivanov M. M., Philcox O. H. E., Cabass G., Akitsu K., Marsh D. J. E., 2023, JCAP, 2023, 023

Samuroff S. et al., 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5453

Samuroff S. et al., 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2195

Sánchez C. et al., 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3896

Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, ApJ, 500, L525

Schmidt S. J., Ménard B., Scranton R., Morrison C. B., Rahman M., Hopkins A. M., 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2696

Schneider P., 2005, preprint (arXiv:astro-ph/0509252)

Secco L. F. et al., 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023515

Sevilla-Noarbe I. et al., 2021, ApJS, 254, 24

Sheldon E. S., Huff E. M., 2017, ApJ, 841, L24

Singh S., Mandelbaum R., Brownstein J. R., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2120

Smith R. E. et al., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1311

Sugiyama S. et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123521

Takahashi R., Sato M., Nishimichi T., Taruya A., Oguri M., 2012, ApJ, 761, L152

Torrado J., Lewis A., 2019, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019

Torrado J., Lewis A., 2021, JCAP, 2021, 057

Troxel M. A., Ishak M., 2015, Phys. Rep., 558, 1

Vlah Z., Chisari N. E., Schmidt F., 2020, JCAP, 2020, 025

Xavier H. S., Abdalla F. B., Joachimi B., 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3693

van Engelen A., Bhattacharya S., Sehgal N., Holder G. P., Zahn O., Nagai D., 2014, ApJ, 786, L13

Yao J. et al., 2023, A&A, 673, 111
## APPENDIX A: RESULTS WITH ACT-ONLY DATA VECTOR

We also perform all of our analysis with the $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$ data vector containing only ACT-DR4 data (i.e. no Planck data and no tSZ deprojection). Fig. A1 shows the ACT-only data vector and the best fit $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$. With ACT-only $\kappa_C$, we measure $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$ at the SNR of 6.6, which is slightly less than the ACT+Planck SNR = 7.1. ACT-only $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$ passes the null tests similar to the ACT+Planck $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$ with PTE = 0.67 for the B-mode null test and PTE = 0.43 for the rotation null test. The null test bandpowers are depicted in Fig. A2.

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A1.** Similar to Section 7, but for ACT-only $\kappa_C$. The points with the error bar show $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$ bandpowers with ACT-DR4 $\kappa_C$ and DES-Y3 shear for four DES-Y3 redshift bins. Error bars are the square root of the diagonal of the covariance matrix. $z_{\text{mean}}$ is the mean redshift of the source galaxy distribution. The curves show the best fit theory $C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma E}$.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A2.** Similar to Fig. 10, but for ACT-only data. Top: The power spectrum between $\kappa_C$ and the B-mode of the shear ($C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa\gamma B}$), which is expected to be consistent with zero. Bottom: The correlation between $\kappa_C$ and the E-mode of the shear map ($C_{\ell}^{\kappa\kappa[\text{rot}]\gamma E}$) obtained from the catalogue in which ellipticities are randomly rotated.</figcaption></figure>

Kitching T. D., Deshpande A. C., Taylor P. L., 2020, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 3, 14

Krolewski A., Ferraro S., White M., 2021, JCAP, 2021, 028

Lewis A., 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 87, 103529

Lewis A., Bridle S., 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 103511

Lewis A., Challinor A., Lasenby A., 2000, ApJ, 538, L473

Lewis A. et al., 2022, cmbant/CAMB: 1.3.5, Zenodo, available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6137931

Limber D. N., 1953, ApJ, 117, L134

Liu J., Hill J. C., 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 063517

LoVerde M., Afshordi N., 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 123506

MacCrann N. et al., 2022, MNRAS, 509, 3371

MacCrann N. et al., 2023, preprint (arXiv:2304.05196)

Madhavacheril M. S., Hill J. C., 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 023534

Madhavacheril M. S. et al., 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 023534

Madhavacheril M. S. et al., 2023, preprint (arXiv:2304.05203)

Mallaby-Kay M. et al., 2021, ApJS, 255, 11

Marques G. A., Liu J., Huffenberger K. M., Colin Hill J., 2020, ApJ, 904, L182

Marques G. A. et al., 2024, JCAP, 2024, 033

Mead A. J., Peacock J. A., Heymans C., Joudaki S., Heavens A. F., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 1958

Miyatake H. et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123517

More S. et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123520

Myles J. et al., 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4249

Namikawa T. et al., 2019, ApJ, 882, L62

Nicola A., García-García C., Alonso D., Dunkley J., Ferreira P. G., Slosar A., Spergel D. N., 2021, JCAP, 2021, 067

Norberg P., Baugh C. M., Gaztañaga E., Croton D. J., 2009, MNRAS, 396, 19

Omori Y. et al., 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 043501

Omori Y. et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 023529

Osborne S. J., Hanson D., Doré O., 2014, JCAP, 2014, 024

Planck Collaboration, 2020, A&A, 641, 6

Poulin V., Bernal J. L., Kovetz E. D., Kamionkowski M., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 123538

Qu F. J. et al., 2023, preprint (arXiv:2304.05202)

Robertson N. C. et al., 2021, A&A, 649, 146

Rogers K. K., Hložek R., Laguë A., Ivanov M. M., Philcox O. H. E., Cabass G., Akitsu K., Marsh D. J. E., 2023, JCAP, 2023, 023

Samuroff S. et al., 2019, MNRAS, 489, 5453

Samuroff S. et al., 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2195

Sánchez C. et al., 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3896

Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner D. P., Davis M., 1998, ApJ, 500, L525

Schmidt S. J., Ménard B., Scranton R., Morrison C. B., Rahman M., Hopkins A. M., 2015, MNRAS, 446, 2696

Schneider P., 2005, preprint (arXiv:astro-ph/0509252)

Secco L. F. et al., 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 023515

Sevilla-Noarbe I. et al., 2021, ApJS, 254, 24

Sheldon E. S., Huff E. M., 2017, ApJ, 841, L24

Singh S., Mandelbaum R., Brownstein J. R., 2017, MNRAS, 464, 2120

Smith R. E. et al., 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1311

Sugiyama S. et al., 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 123521

Takahashi R., Sato M., Nishimichi T., Taruya A., Oguri M., 2012, ApJ, 761, L152

Torrado J., Lewis A., 2019, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1910.019

Torrado J., Lewis A., 2021, JCAP, 2021, 057

Troxel M. A., Ishak M., 2015, Phys. Rep., 558, 1

Vlah Z., Chisari N. E., Schmidt F., 2020, JCAP, 2020, 025

Xavier H. S., Abdalla F. B., Joachimi B., 2016, MNRAS, 459, 3693

van Engelen A., Bhattacharya S., Sehgal N., Holder G. P., Zahn O., Nagai D., 2014, ApJ, 786, L13

Yao J. et al., 2023, A&A, 673, 111
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A3.** Comparison of $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ [ACT-only, with-tSZ] and $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ [ACT+Planck, tSZ-free]. Top: The difference between two ($\Delta C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E} \equiv C_{\ell}^{\text{with-tSZ}} - C_{\ell}^{\text{tSZ-free}}$) relative to the fiducial theory $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$. The error bars depict $\sigma(\Delta C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E})/C_{\ell}^{[\text{th}]\kappa C\gamma E}$, where $\sigma(\Delta C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E})$ is uncertainty on $\Delta C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$. Bottom: The same difference as in the top panel, $\Delta C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$, but now in units of error bar on tSZ-free $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A4.** The stability of the recovery of the $S_8$ parameter from our simulated ACT-only data vector as we change the model used for the inference. Results from the fiducial ACT+Planck simulated data vector are shown as the faded points (and ACT-only results are not shown for all the model variations). The dashed vertical line represents the true value input to the simulation, and the shaded band is the error bar in the fiducial model setup.</figcaption></figure>

## A1 Comparison of ACT-only and ACT+Planck data vector

In this section, we compare $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ data vector obtained using ACT-only $\kappa_C$ and ACT+Planck $\kappa_C$. An astrophysical systematic that is not modelled and is correlated with the reconstructed $\kappa_C$ and galaxy shear can lead to a bias in the measurement of $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$. In addition to the lensing, observed CMB maps contain the imprints of other secondary anisotropies and foregrounds, such as the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect and emissions from galaxies, such as the CIB. If these effects are sufficiently non-Gaussian over the scales of the CMB temperature anisotropies used to reconstruct $\kappa_C$, they can bias the lensing estimate. If, in addition, these secondary effects and extragalactic foregrounds share redshift overlap with a tracer

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A5.** Stability of our 1D marginalized measurement of $S_8$ when using different parts of the full ACT only data vector (results from the fiducial ACT+Planck data vector are shown as points with lighter shade). In each row, we either remove a single DES-Y3 tomographic bin or use the data from only one of the four DES-Y3 bins.</figcaption></figure>

of LSS, the cross-correlation of the reconstructed $\kappa_C$ with these tracers is biased (Osborne, Hanson & Doré 2014; van Engelen et al. 2014). For correlations with cosmic shear, the effect of the tSZ bias is shown to be more severe at lower redshift bins (Baxter et al. 2019). In $\kappa_C$ reconstruction with ACT 98 and 150 GHz maps, tSZ contamination is mitigated by finding and masking massive clusters in the temperature maps. The clusters detected above signal-to-noise ratio = 5 are masked in frequency maps, and the masked regions are in painted. However, this procedure does not remove all of the tSZ bias in the reconstructed $\kappa_C$. Hence, along with the ACT 98 and 150 GHz maps, Darwish et al. (2021) use Planck frequency maps from 30 to 545 GHz to deproject tSZ and reconstruct $\kappa_C$ where the effect of tSZ is nulled. In Fig. A3, we show the difference between the $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ bandpowers for $\kappa_C$ with ACT-only data and the ACT+Planck tSZ-free (which is our choice for the baseline analysis). We find that the four bandpowers are consistent with the hypothesis of no difference, with the PTEs for four redshift bin bandpowers being 0.86, 0.72, 0.68, and 0.65, respectively.

## A2 Analysis results

The parameter inference with ACT-only $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ is performed with identical modelling choices as that of ACT+Planck $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$. Fig. A4 shows the results with simulations of ACT-only $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ indicating the stability of recovery of the $S_8$ parameter for different models used for inference. Fig. A5 shows the consistency of the $S_8$ inference for different data combinations similar to the case of ACT+Planck as depicted by points with the lighter shade. We show the posterior distribution of the cosmological parameters in Fig. A6. We find that the $\sigma_8$ and $S_8$ inferred with ACT-only $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ are somewhat smaller than those inferred from ACT+Planck $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$. This is consistent with what we observe in Fig. A3. ACT-only $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ has a smaller amplitude than ACT+Planck $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ at lower multiples, which are multipole bins with higher SNR, resulting in lower $S_8$ inference. The constraints on the shear calibration and photometric uncertainty parameters are similar to those obtained with ACT+Planck $\kappa_C$ shown in Fig. A7.
<figure><img src="image_25.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A3.** Comparison of $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ [ACT-only, with-tSZ] and $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ [ACT+Planck, tSZ-free]. Top: The difference between two ($\Delta C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E} \equiv C_{\ell}^{\text{with-tSZ}} - C_{\ell}^{\text{tSZ-free}}$) relative to the fiducial theory $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$. The error bars depict $\sigma(\Delta C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E})/C_{\ell}^{[\text{th}]\kappa C\gamma E}$, where $\sigma(\Delta C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E})$ is uncertainty on $\Delta C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$. Bottom: The same difference as in the top panel, $\Delta C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$, but now in units of error bar on tSZ-free $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A4.** The stability of the recovery of the $S_8$ parameter from our simulated ACT-only data vector as we change the model used for the inference. Results from the fiducial ACT+Planck simulated data vector are shown as the faded points (and ACT-only results are not shown for all the model variations). The dashed vertical line represents the true value input to the simulation, and the shaded band is the error bar in the fiducial model setup.</figcaption></figure>

## A1 Comparison of ACT-only and ACT+Planck data vector

In this section, we compare $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ data vector obtained using ACT-only $\kappa_C$ and ACT+Planck $\kappa_C$. An astrophysical systematic that is not modelled and is correlated with the reconstructed $\kappa_C$ and galaxy shear can lead to a bias in the measurement of $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$. In addition to the lensing, observed CMB maps contain the imprints of other secondary anisotropies and foregrounds, such as the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect and emissions from galaxies, such as the CIB. If these effects are sufficiently non-Gaussian over the scales of the CMB temperature anisotropies used to reconstruct $\kappa_C$, they can bias the lensing estimate. If, in addition, these secondary effects and extragalactic foregrounds share redshift overlap with a tracer

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A5.** Stability of our 1D marginalized measurement of $S_8$ when using different parts of the full ACT only data vector (results from the fiducial ACT+Planck data vector are shown as points with lighter shade). In each row, we either remove a single DES-Y3 tomographic bin or use the data from only one of the four DES-Y3 bins.</figcaption></figure>

of LSS, the cross-correlation of the reconstructed $\kappa_C$ with these tracers is biased (Osborne, Hanson & Doré 2014; van Engelen et al. 2014). For correlations with cosmic shear, the effect of the tSZ bias is shown to be more severe at lower redshift bins (Baxter et al. 2019). In $\kappa_C$ reconstruction with ACT 98 and 150 GHz maps, tSZ contamination is mitigated by finding and masking massive clusters in the temperature maps. The clusters detected above signal-to-noise ratio = 5 are masked in frequency maps, and the masked regions are in painted. However, this procedure does not remove all of the tSZ bias in the reconstructed $\kappa_C$. Hence, along with the ACT 98 and 150 GHz maps, Darwish et al. (2021) use Planck frequency maps from 30 to 545 GHz to deproject tSZ and reconstruct $\kappa_C$ where the effect of tSZ is nulled. In Fig. A3, we show the difference between the $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ bandpowers for $\kappa_C$ with ACT-only data and the ACT+Planck tSZ-free (which is our choice for the baseline analysis). We find that the four bandpowers are consistent with the hypothesis of no difference, with the PTEs for four redshift bin bandpowers being 0.86, 0.72, 0.68, and 0.65, respectively.

## A2 Analysis results

The parameter inference with ACT-only $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ is performed with identical modelling choices as that of ACT+Planck $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$. Fig. A4 shows the results with simulations of ACT-only $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ indicating the stability of recovery of the $S_8$ parameter for different models used for inference. Fig. A5 shows the consistency of the $S_8$ inference for different data combinations similar to the case of ACT+Planck as depicted by points with the lighter shade. We show the posterior distribution of the cosmological parameters in Fig. A6. We find that the $\sigma_8$ and $S_8$ inferred with ACT-only $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ are somewhat smaller than those inferred from ACT+Planck $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$. This is consistent with what we observe in Fig. A3. ACT-only $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ has a smaller amplitude than ACT+Planck $C_{\ell}^{\kappa C\gamma E}$ at lower multiples, which are multipole bins with higher SNR, resulting in lower $S_8$ inference. The constraints on the shear calibration and photometric uncertainty parameters are similar to those obtained with ACT+Planck $\kappa_C$ shown in Fig. A7.
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A6.** Top: The inferred distribution of cosmological parameters $\Omega_m$, $\sigma_8$, $S_8$ from our ACT-only $C_l^{\kappa C/\epsilon}$ data vector alongside two other measurements (the result from the fiducial ACT+Planck data vector is shown as unfilled dashed contours). The ACT-only posterior has $S_8 = 0.728^{+0.067}_{-0.057}$. Bottom: ACT-only $S_8$ alongside a number of other measurements (with the result from the fiducial ACT+Planck data vector shown in a lighter shade). Note that the ACT+Planck×KiDS measurement uses the $\kappa_C$ of the BN region of ACT-DR4 data (Robertson et al. 2021).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A7.** Constraints on the galaxy weak lensing nuisance parameters in DES-Y3 tomographic bin 4 ($0.87 < z < 2.0$) from ACT-only data vector (the result from the fiducial ACT+Planck data vector is shown as the dashed contour). The DES-Y3 prior used in the main analysis is shown as unfilled contours; note the consistency with the filled contours obtained with fixed cosmological parameters but broad priors on nuisance parameters.</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_28.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A6.** Top: The inferred distribution of cosmological parameters $\Omega_m$, $\sigma_8$, $S_8$ from our ACT-only $C_l^{\kappa C/\epsilon}$ data vector alongside two other measurements (the result from the fiducial ACT+Planck data vector is shown as unfilled dashed contours). The ACT-only posterior has $S_8 = 0.728^{+0.067}_{-0.057}$. Bottom: ACT-only $S_8$ alongside a number of other measurements (with the result from the fiducial ACT+Planck data vector shown in a lighter shade). Note that the ACT+Planck×KiDS measurement uses the $\kappa_C$ of the BN region of ACT-DR4 data (Robertson et al. 2021).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>**Figure A7.** Constraints on the galaxy weak lensing nuisance parameters in DES-Y3 tomographic bin 4 ($0.87 < z < 2.0$) from ACT-only data vector (the result from the fiducial ACT+Planck data vector is shown as the dashed contour). The DES-Y3 prior used in the main analysis is shown as unfilled contours; note the consistency with the filled contours obtained with fixed cosmological parameters but broad priors on nuisance parameters.</figcaption></figure>
## APPENDIX B: FURTHER ILLUSTRATIVE POSTERIOR PLOTS

In Figs B1 and B2, we present a complete version of the posterior shown in Fig. 13 (for the simulated data vector), but in blocks of panels containing only cosmological parameters, galaxy IA parameters, and weak lensing nuisance parameters. When presented here, axis limits are changed in order to get a full view of the relevant prior distributions. In Fig. B3, we show the full posterior from our baseline analysis of the ACT+Planck×DES-Y3 data, a part of which is already shown in Fig. 17.

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

**Figure B1.** Recovery of input model parameters using our pipeline as described in Section 6 alongside the 68 per cent and 95 per cent contours of the prior (unfilled black contours). These are the same marginalized 1D and 2D posterior distributions shown in Fig. 13, but display only the cosmological parameters to increase the clarity of details.

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

**Figure B2.** Recovery of input model parameters using our pipeline as described in Section 6 alongside the 68 per cent and 95 per cent contours of the prior (unfilled black contours). These are the same marginalized 1D and 2D posterior distributions shown in Fig. 13 but display only the IA parameters (top) and weak lensing nuisance parameters (bottom) to increase the clarity of details.
## APPENDIX B: FURTHER ILLUSTRATIVE POSTERIOR PLOTS

In Figs B1 and B2, we present a complete version of the posterior shown in Fig. 13 (for the simulated data vector), but in blocks of panels containing only cosmological parameters, galaxy IA parameters, and weak lensing nuisance parameters. When presented here, axis limits are changed in order to get a full view of the relevant prior distributions. In Fig. B3, we show the full posterior from our baseline analysis of the ACT+Planck×DES-Y3 data, a part of which is already shown in Fig. 17.

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

**Figure B1.** Recovery of input model parameters using our pipeline as described in Section 6 alongside the 68 per cent and 95 per cent contours of the prior (unfilled black contours). These are the same marginalized 1D and 2D posterior distributions shown in Fig. 13, but display only the cosmological parameters to increase the clarity of details.

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

**Figure B2.** Recovery of input model parameters using our pipeline as described in Section 6 alongside the 68 per cent and 95 per cent contours of the prior (unfilled black contours). These are the same marginalized 1D and 2D posterior distributions shown in Fig. 13 but display only the IA parameters (top) and weak lensing nuisance parameters (bottom) to increase the clarity of details.
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>**Figure B3.** The full posterior from our baseline analysis is already shown in part in Fig. 17. Black unfilled contours show the priors specified in Table 2 as they appear in this output parameter space, and blue-filled contours show the recovered posterior constraints.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, CF24 3AA, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P. O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, NSF's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory, Casilla 603, La Serena, Chile</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Laboratório Interinstitucional de e-Astronomia – LIneA, Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - 20921-400, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Kavli Institute for Cosmology, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 3FX, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Department of Astronomy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL 60439, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵CNRS, UMR 7095, Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, F-75014, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR 7095, Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, F-75014, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷Department of Physics, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto, 60 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3H8, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹Department of Physics & Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics & Cosmology, Stanford University, P. O. Box 2450, Stanford, CA 94305, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²²Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, E-38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³Dpto. Astrofísica, Universidad de La Laguna, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴Institut de Física d'Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Campus UAB, E-08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵Physics Department, William Jewell College, Liberty, MO 64068, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷Department of Physics, Duke University Durham, NC 27708, USA</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_32.png" /><figcaption>**Figure B3.** The full posterior from our baseline analysis is already shown in part in Fig. 17. Black unfilled contours show the priors specified in Table 2 as they appear in this output parameter space, and blue-filled contours show the recovered posterior constraints.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²School of Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, CF24 3AA, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P. O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, NSF's National Optical-Infrared Astronomy Research Laboratory, Casilla 603, La Serena, Chile</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶Laboratório Interinstitucional de e-Astronomia – LIneA, Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - 20921-400, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Department of Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹Kavli Institute for Cosmology, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 3FX, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Department of Astronomy, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³Argonne National Laboratory, 9700 South Cass Avenue, Lemont, IL 60439, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵CNRS, UMR 7095, Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, F-75014, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR 7095, Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, F-75014, Paris, France</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷Department of Physics, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto, 60 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3H8, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹Department of Physics & Astronomy, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics & Cosmology, Stanford University, P. O. Box 2450, Stanford, CA 94305, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²²Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias, E-38205 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³Dpto. Astrofísica, Universidad de La Laguna, E-38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴Institut de Física d'Altes Energies (IFAE), The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Campus UAB, E-08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="25">²⁵Physics Department, William Jewell College, Liberty, MO 64068, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷Department of Physics, Duke University Durham, NC 27708, USA</footnote>
<footnote n="28">²⁸NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Rd, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹Department of Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰Hamburger Sternwarte, Universität Hamburg, Gojenbergsweg 112, 21029 Hamburg, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹Département de Physique Théorique et CAP, Université de Genève, 24 quai Ernest-Ansermet, CH-1211 Genève 4, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³²School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³Department of Physics, IIT Hyderabad, Kandi, Telangana 502285, India</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, LPSC-IN2P3, F-38000 Grenoble, France</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics, Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, P. O. Box 1029 Blindern, NO-0315 Oslo, Norway</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰Instituto de Física Teórica UAM/CSIC, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, E-28049 Madrid, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹University Observatory, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Scheinerstr. 1, D-81679 Munich, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴²Center for Astrophysical Surveys, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, 1205 West Clark Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³Department of Astronomy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1002 W. Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴Department of Physics, Columbia University, 538 West 120th Street, NY 10027, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸Department of Physics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰Centre for Radio Astronomy Techniques and Technologies, Department of Physics and Electronics, Rhodes University, P. O. Box 94, Makhanda 6140, South Africa</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹South African Radio Astronomy Observatory, 2 Fir Street, Observatory 7925, South Africa</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵²Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³Departamento de Física Matemática, Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, CP 66318, São Paulo, SP, 05314-970, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴George P. and Cynthia Woods Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy, and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Av. Complutense, 40, Moncloa - Aravaca, E-28040 Madrid, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, E-08010 Barcelona, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Giessenbachstrasse, D-85748 Garching, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸Astrophysics Research Centre, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville Campus, Durban 4041, South Africa</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹School of Mathematics, Statistics & Computer Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville Campus, Durban 4041, South Africa</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰Department of Physics, Stanford University, 382 Via Pueblo Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹Instituto de Física Gleb Wataghin, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 13083-859, Campinas, SP, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶²Department of Physics, Yale University, 217 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³Department of Physics and Astronomy, Haverford College, Haverford, PA, 19041, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴Observatório Nacional, Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - 20921-400, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶Department of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷Brookhaven National Laboratory, Building 510, Upton, NY 11973, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸Instituto de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Casilla 4059, Valparaíso, Chile</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰Computer Science and Mathematics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie (IRAP), Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, CNES, 14 Avenue Edouard Belin, F-31400 Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷²Instituto de Astrofísica and Centro de Astro-Ingenieía, Facultad de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida Vicuña Mackenna 48608, 7820436 Macul, Santiago, Chile</footnote>

<footnote>This paper has been typeset from a TeX/LATEX file prepared by the author.</footnote>
<footnote n="28">²⁸NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 8800 Greenbelt Rd, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="29">²⁹Department of Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰Hamburger Sternwarte, Universität Hamburg, Gojenbergsweg 112, 21029 Hamburg, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹Département de Physique Théorique et CAP, Université de Genève, 24 quai Ernest-Ansermet, CH-1211 Genève 4, Switzerland</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³²School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³Department of Physics, IIT Hyderabad, Kandi, Telangana 502285, India</footnote>

<footnote n="34">³⁴Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, LPSC-IN2P3, F-38000 Grenoble, France</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="37">³⁷Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸Berkeley Center for Cosmological Physics, Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, P. O. Box 1029 Blindern, NO-0315 Oslo, Norway</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰Instituto de Física Teórica UAM/CSIC, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, E-28049 Madrid, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹University Observatory, Faculty of Physics, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Scheinerstr. 1, D-81679 Munich, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="42">⁴²Center for Astrophysical Surveys, National Center for Supercomputing Applications, 1205 West Clark Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³Department of Astronomy, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1002 W. Green Street, Urbana, IL 61801, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴Department of Physics, Columbia University, 538 West 120th Street, NY 10027, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸Department of Physics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰Centre for Radio Astronomy Techniques and Technologies, Department of Physics and Electronics, Rhodes University, P. O. Box 94, Makhanda 6140, South Africa</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹South African Radio Astronomy Observatory, 2 Fir Street, Observatory 7925, South Africa</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵²Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³Departamento de Física Matemática, Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, CP 66318, São Paulo, SP, 05314-970, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴George P. and Cynthia Woods Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy, and Department of Physics and Astronomy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas (CIEMAT), Av. Complutense, 40, Moncloa - Aravaca, E-28040 Madrid, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, E-08010 Barcelona, Spain</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, Giessenbachstrasse, D-85748 Garching, Germany</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸Astrophysics Research Centre, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville Campus, Durban 4041, South Africa</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹School of Mathematics, Statistics & Computer Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Westville Campus, Durban 4041, South Africa</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰Department of Physics, Stanford University, 382 Via Pueblo Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹Instituto de Física Gleb Wataghin, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 13083-859, Campinas, SP, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶²Department of Physics, Yale University, 217 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³Department of Physics and Astronomy, Haverford College, Haverford, PA, 19041, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴Observatório Nacional, Rua Gal. José Cristino 77, Rio de Janeiro, RJ - 20921-400, Brazil</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3HJ, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶Department of Physics and Astronomy, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷Brookhaven National Laboratory, Building 510, Upton, NY 11973, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸Instituto de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Casilla 4059, Valparaíso, Chile</footnote>

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰Computer Science and Mathematics Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, USA</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie (IRAP), Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, CNES, 14 Avenue Edouard Belin, F-31400 Toulouse, France</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷²Instituto de Astrofísica and Centro de Astro-Ingenieía, Facultad de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida Vicuña Mackenna 48608, 7820436 Macul, Santiago, Chile</footnote>

<footnote>This paper has been typeset from a TeX/LATEX file prepared by the author.</footnote>