4.7 Article

Measurement and calibration of noise bias in weak lensing galaxy shape estimation

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 427, Issue 4, Pages 2711-2722

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21622.x

Keywords

gravitational lensing: weak; methods: data analysis; methods: statistical; techniques: image processing; cosmology: observations

Funding

  1. European Research Council [240672]
  2. NASA
  3. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/J001511/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. STFC [ST/F001991/1, ST/J001511/1, ST/I000879/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Weak gravitational lensing has the potential to constrain cosmological parameters to high precision. However, as shown by the Shear Testing Programmes and Gravitational lensing Accuracy Testing challenges, measuring galaxy shears is a non-trivial task: various methods introduce different systematic biases which have to be accounted for. We investigate how pixel noise on the image affects the bias on shear estimates from a maximum likelihood forward model-fitting approach using a sum of co-elliptical Sersic profiles, in complement to the theoretical approach of an associated paper. We evaluate the bias using a simple but realistic galaxy model and find that the effects of noise alone can cause biases of the order of 1-10 per cent on measured shears, which is significant for current and future lensing surveys. We evaluate a simulation-based calibration method to create a bias model as a function of galaxy properties and observing conditions. This model is then used to correct the simulated measurements. We demonstrate that, for the simple case in which the correct range of galaxy models is used in the fit, the calibration method can reduce noise bias to the level required for estimating cosmic shear in upcoming lensing surveys.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available