Impact of point spread function higher moments error on weak gravitational lensing – II. A comprehensive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Weak lensing is one of the most powerful probes for dark matter and dark energy science, although it faces increasing challenges in controlling systematic uncertainties as the statistical errors become smaller. The point spread function (PSF) needs to be precisely modeled to avoid systematic error on the weak lensing measurements. The weak lensing biases induced by errors in the PSF model second moments, i.e. its size and shape, are well-studied. However, Zhang et al. showed that errors in the higher moments of the PSF may also be a significant source of systematics for upcoming weak lensing surveys. Therefore, this work comprehensively investigate the modelling quality of PSF moments from the 3rd to 6th order, and propagate the PSFEx higher moments modelling error in the HSC survey data set to the weak lensing shear–shear correlation functions and their cosmological analyses. The overall multiplicative shear bias associated with errors in PSF higher moments can cause an ∼0.1σ shift on the cosmological parameters for LSST Y10, while the associated additive biases can induce 1σ uncertainties in cosmology parameter inference for LSST Y10, if not accounted. We compare the PSFEx model with PSF in Full FOV, and find similar performance in modelling the PSF higher moments. We conclude that PSF higher moment errors of the future PSF models should be reduced from those in current methods, otherwise needed to be explicitly modeled in the weak lensing analysis.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".