@article{discovery10199332, title = {Dark Energy Survey: A 2.1\% measurement of the angular baryonic acoustic oscillation scale at redshift zeff=0.85 from the final dataset}, journal = {Physical Review D}, year = {2024}, publisher = {American Physical Society (APS)}, note = {This version is the version of record. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher's terms and conditions.}, volume = {110}, number = {6}, month = {September}, abstract = {We present the angular diameter distance measurement obtained with the baryonic acoustic oscillation (BAO) feature from galaxy clustering in the completed Dark Energy Survey, consisting of six years (Y6) of observations. We use the Y6 BAO galaxy sample, optimized for BAO science in the redshift range 0.6{\ensuremath{<}}z{\ensuremath{<}}1.2, with an effective redshift at zeff=0.85 and split into six tomographic bins. The sample has nearly 16 million galaxies over 4,273 square degrees. Our consensus measurement constrains the ratio of the angular distance to sound horizon scale to DM(zeff)/rd=19.51{$\pm$}0.41 (at 68.3\% confidence interval), resulting from comparing the BAO position in our data to that predicted by planck {\ensuremath{\Lambda}}CDM via the BAO shift parameter {\ensuremath{\alpha}}=(DM/rd)/(DM/rd)PLANCK. To achieve this, the BAO shift is measured with three different methods, angular correlation function (ACF), angular power spectrum (APS), and projected correlation function (PCF), obtaining {\ensuremath{\alpha}}=0.952{$\pm$}0.023, 0.962{$\pm$}0.022, and 0.955{$\pm$}0.020, respectively, which we combine to {\ensuremath{\alpha}}=0.957{$\pm$}0.020, including systematic errors. When compared with the {\ensuremath{\Lambda}}CDM model that best fits planck data, this measurement is found to be 4.3\% and 2.1{\ensuremath{\sigma}} below the angular BAO scale predicted. To date, it represents the most precise angular BAO measurement at z{\ensuremath{>}}0.75 from any survey and the most precise measurement at any redshift from photometric surveys. The analysis was performed blinded to the BAO position, and it is shown to be robust against analysis choices, data removal, redshift calibrations, and observational systematics.}, issn = {2470-0010}, author = {Abbott, TMC and Adamow, M and Aguena, M and Allam, S and Alves, O and Amon, A and Andrade-Oliveira, F and Asorey, J and Avila, S and Bacon, D and Bechtol, K and Bernstein, GM and Bertin, E and Blazek, J and Bocquet, S and Brooks, D and Burke, DL and Camacho, H and Carnero Rosell, A and Carollo, D and Carr, A and Carretero, J and Castander, FJ and Cawthon, R and Chan, KC and Chang, C and Conselice, C and Costanzi, M and Crocce, M and Da Costa, LN and Pereira, MES and Davis, TM and De Vicente, J and Deiosso, N and Desai, S and Diehl, HT and Dodelson, S and Doux, C and Drlica-Wagner, A and Elvin-Poole, J and Everett, S and Ferrero, I and Fert{\'e}, A and Flaugher, B and Fosalba, P and Frieman, J and Garc{\'i}a-Bellido, J and Gaztanaga, E and Giannini, G and Glazebrook, K and Gruendl, RA and Gutierrez, G and Hartley, WG and Hinton, SR and Hollowood, DL and Honscheid, K and Huterer, D and James, DJ and Kent, S and Kuehn, K and Lahav, O and Lee, S and Lewis, GF and Lidman, C and Lima, M and Lin, H and Malik, U and Maraston, C and Marshall, JL and Martini, P and Mena-Fern{\'a}ndez, J and Menanteau, F and Miquel, R and Mohr, JJ and Myles, J and M{\"o}ller, A and Nichol, RC and Ogando, RLC and Palmese, A and Percival, WJ and Pieres, A and Plazas Malag{\'o}n, AA and Porredon, A and Prat, J and Rodr{\'i}guez-Monroy, M and Romer, AK and Roodman, A and Rosenfeld, R and Ross, AJ and Rykoff, ES and Sako, M and Samuroff, S and S{\'a}nchez, C and Sanchez, E and Sanchez Cid, D and Santiago, B and Schubnell, M and Sevilla-Noarbe, I and Sheldon, E and Smith, M}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063515} }