MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3102676272 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037844

Constraining the masses of high-redshift clusters with weak lensing: Revised shape calibration testing for the impact of stronger shears and increased blending

2020· article· en· W3102676272 on OpenAlexaff
Beatriz Hernández-Martín, T. Schrabback, Henk Hoekstra, N. Martinet, Julie Hlavacek-Larrondo, L. E. Bleem, M. D. Gladders, B. Stalder, A. A. Stark, Matthew Bayliss

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersSpace Telescope Science InstituteNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeBundesministerium für Wirtschaft und TechnologieOffice of ScienceNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesArgonne National LaboratoryU.S. Department of EnergyDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversity of ChicagoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsWeak gravitational lensingRedshiftGalaxyPhotometric redshiftGalaxy cluster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Weak lensing measurements suffer from well-known shear estimation biases, which can be partially corrected for with the use of image simulations. In this work we present an analysis of simulated images that mimic Hubble Space Telescope/Advance Camera for Surveys observations of high-redshift galaxy clusters, including cluster specific issues such as non-weak shear and increased blending. Our synthetic galaxies have been generated to have similar observed properties as the background-selected source samples studied in the real images. First, we used simulations with galaxies placed on a grid to determine a revised signal-to-noise-dependent (S/NKSB) correction for multiplicative shear measurement bias, and to quantify the sensitivity of our KSB+ bias calibration to mismatches of galaxy or PSF properties between the real data and the simulations. Next, we studied the impact of increased blending and light contamination from cluster and foreground galaxies, finding it to be negligible for high-redshift (z > 0.7) clusters, whereas shear measurements can be affected at the ∼1% level for lower redshift clusters given their brighter member galaxies. Finally, we studied the impact of fainter neighbours and selection bias using a set of simulated images that mimic the positions and magnitudes of galaxies in Cosmic Assembly Near-IR Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey (CANDELS) data, thereby including realistic clustering. While the initial SExtractor object detection causes a multiplicative shear selection bias of −0.028 ± 0.002, this is reduced to −0.016 ± 0.002 by further cuts applied in our pipeline. Given the limited depth of the CANDELS data, we compared our CANDELS-based estimate for the impact of faint neighbours on the multiplicative shear measurement bias to a grid-based analysis, to which we added clustered galaxies to even fainter magnitudes based on Hubble Ultra Deep Field data, yielding a refined estimate of ∼ − 0.013. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that our pipeline is calibrated to an accuracy of ∼0.015 once all corrections are applied, which is fully sufficient for current and near-future weak lensing studies of high-redshift clusters. As an application, we used it for a refined analysis of three highly relaxed clusters from the South Pole Telescope Sunyaev-Zeldovich survey, where we now included measurements down to the cluster core (r > 200 kpc) as enabled by our work. Compared to previously employed scales (r > 500 kpc), this tightens the cluster mass constraints by a factor 1.38 on average.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→