4.2 Article

Mocking the weak lensing universe: The LensTools Python computing package

Journal

ASTRONOMY AND COMPUTING
Volume 17, Issue -, Pages 73-79

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ascom.2016.06.001

Keywords

Weak Gravitational Lensing; Simulations

Funding

  1. State of New York
  2. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-98CH10886, DESC0012704]
  3. NSF [AST-1210877]
  4. Research Opportunities and Approaches to Data Science (ROADS) program at the Institute for Data Sciences and Engineering at Columbia University
  5. [ACI-1053575]
  6. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  7. Division Of Astronomical Sciences [1210877] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a newly developed software package which implements a wide range of routines frequently used in Weak Gravitational Lensing (WL). With the continuously increasing size of the WL scientific community we feel that easy to use Application Program Interfaces (APIs) for common calculations are a necessity to ensure efficiency and coordination across different worldng groups. Coupled with existing open source codes, such as CAMB (Lewis et al., 2000) and Gadget2 (Springel, 2005), LensTools brings together a cosmic shear simulation pipeline which, complemented with a variety of WL feature measurement tools and parameter sampling routines, provides easy access to the numerics for theoretical studies of WL as well as for experiment forecasts. Being implemented in PYTHON (Rossum, 1995), LensTools takes full advantage of a range of state-of-the art techniques developed by the large and growing open-source software community (Jones et al., 2001; McKinney, 2010; Astrophy Collaboration, 2013; Pedregosa et al., 2011; Foreman-Mackey et al., 2013). We made the LensTools code available on the Python Package Index and published its documentation on http://lenstools.readthedocs.io. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available