MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Shear Testing Programme 2: Factors affecting high-precision weak-lensing analyses

2007· article· en· W2116952190 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCalifornia Institute of TechnologyJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Shear (geology)Reliability (semiconductor)GalaxyNoise (video)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Shear Testing Programme (STEP) is a collaborative project to improve the accuracy and reliability of weak-lensing measurement, in preparation for the next generation of wide-field surveys. We review 16 current and emerging shear-measurement methods in a common language, and assess their performance by running them (blindly) on simulated images that contain a known shear signal. We determine the common features of algorithms that most successfully recover the input parameters. A desirable goal would be the combination of their best elements into one ultimate shear-measurement method. In this analysis, we achieve previously unattained discriminatory precision via a combination of more extensive simulations and pairs of galaxy images that have been rotated with respect to each other. That removes the otherwise overwhelming noise from their intrinsic ellipticities. Finally, the robustness of our simulation approach is confirmed by testing the relative calibration of methods on real data. Weak-lensing measurements have improved since the first STEP paper. Several methods now consistently achieve better than 2 per cent precision, and are still being developed. However, we can now distinguish all methods from perfect performance. Our main concern continues to be the potential for a multiplicative shear calibration bias: not least because this cannot be internally calibrated with real data. We determine which galaxy populations are responsible for bias and, by adjusting the simulated observing conditions, we also investigate the effects of instrumental and atmospheric parameters. The simulated point spread functions are not allowed to vary spatially, to avoid additional confusion from interpolation errors. We have isolated several previously unrecognized aspects of galaxy shape measurement, in which focused development could provide further progress towards the sub-per cent level of precision desired for future surveys. These areas include the suitable treatment of image pixellization and galaxy morphology evolution. Ignoring the former effect affects the measurement of shear in different directions, leading to an overall underestimation of shear and hence the amplitude of the matter power spectrum. Ignoring the second effect could affect the calibration of shear estimators as a function of galaxy redshift, and the evolution of the lensing signal, which will be vital to measure parameters including the dark energy equation of state.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it