4.7 Article

Weak lensing measurements in simulations of radio images

Journal

MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Volume 444, Issue 3, Pages 2893-2909

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stu1588

Keywords

gravitational lensing: weak; instrumentation: interferometers; methods: observational; techniques: image processing; cosmology: observations; dark matter

Funding

  1. NRF SKA Postdoctoral Fellowship
  2. European Research Council [240672]
  3. Royal society via an RSURF
  4. South African Research Chairs Initiative of the Department of Science and Technology
  5. National Research Foundation
  6. STFC [ST/J001511/1, ST/I000879/1, ST/M001946/1, ST/L000768/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I000879/1, ST/J001511/1, ST/L000768/1, ST/M001946/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a study of weak lensing shear measurements for simulated galaxy images at radio wavelengths. We construct a simulation pipeline into which we can input galaxy images of known shapelet ellipticity, and with which we then simulate observations with eMERLIN and the international LOFAR array. The simulations include the effects of the CLEAN algorithm, uv sampling, observing angle and visibility noise, and produce realistic restored images of the galaxies. We apply a shapelet-based shear measurement method to these images and test our ability to recover the true source shapelet ellipticities. We model and deconvolve the effective point spread function, and find suitable parameters for CLEAN and shapelet decomposition of galaxies. We demonstrate that ellipticities can be measured faithfully in these radio simulations, with no evidence of an additive bias and a modest (10 per cent) multiplicative bias on the ellipticity measurements. Our simulation pipeline can be used to test shear measurement procedures and systematics for the next generation of radio telescopes.

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