STATISTICAL AND SYSTEMATIC ERRORS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF WEAK-LENSING MINKOWSKI FUNCTIONALS: APPLICATION TO THE CANADA-FRANCE-HAWAII LENSING SURVEY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The measurement of cosmic shear using weak gravitational lensing is a challenging task that involves a number of complicated procedures. We study in detail the systematic errors in the measurement of weak-lensing Minkowski Functionals (MFs). Specifically, we focus on systematics associated with galaxy shape measurements, photometric redshift errors, and shear calibration correction. We first generate mock weak-lensing catalogs that directly incorporate the actual observational characteristics of the Canada–France–Hawaii Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS). We then perform a Fisher analysis using the large set of mock catalogs for various cosmological models. We find that the statistical error associated with the observational effects degrades the cosmological parameter constraints by a factor of a few. The Subaru Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) survey with a sky coverage of ∼1400 deg 2 will constrain the dark energy equation of the state parameter with an error of Δ w 0 ∼ 0.25 by the lensing MFs alone, but biases induced by the systematics can be comparable to the 1σ error. We conclude that the lensing MFs are powerful statistics beyond the two-point statistics only if well-calibrated measurement of both the redshifts and the shapes of source galaxies is performed. Finally, we analyze the CFHTLenS data to explore the ability of the MFs to break degeneracies between a few cosmological parameters. Using a combined analysis of the MFs and the shear correlation function, we derive the matter density .
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".