MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406316874 · doi:10.33232/001c.132299

Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Point-Spread Function Modeling

2025· article· en· W4406316874 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Journal of Astrophysics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersSLAC National Accelerator LaboratoryNational Science FoundationFermilabDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftHigh Energy PhysicsOffice of ScienceInstitut de Física d'Altes EnergiesConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoChina Scholarship CouncilLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryFinanciadora de Estudos e ProjetosUniversity of PennsylvaniaMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoScience and Technology Facilities CouncilUniversity College LondonUniversity of PortsmouthUniversity of ChicagoOhio State UniversityIntegrated Electronics Engineering Center, Binghamton UniversityUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroUniversity of SussexGordon and Betty Moore FoundationArgonne National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsDark energyFunction (biology)PhysicsEnvironmental scienceAstrophysicsBiologyCosmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the point-spread function (PSF) modeling for weak lensing shear measurement using the full six years of the Dark Energy Survey (DES Y6) data. We review the PSF estimation procedure using the PIFF (PSFs In the Full FOV) software package and describe the key improvements made to PIFF and modeling diagnostics since the DES year three (Y3) analysis: (i) use of external Gaia and infrared photometry catalogs to ensure higher purity of the stellar sample used for model fitting, (ii) addition of color-dependent PSF modeling, the first for any weak lensing analysis, and (iii) inclusion of model diagnostics inspecting fourth-order moments, which can bias weak lensing measurements to a similar degree as second-order modeling errors. Through a comprehensive set of diagnostic tests, we demonstrate the improved accuracy of the Y6 models evident in significantly smaller systematic errors than those of the Y3 analysis, in which all <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:mi>g</mml:mi> </mml:math> band data were excluded due to insufficiently accurate PSF models. For the Y6 weak lensing analysis, we include <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:mi>g</mml:mi> </mml:math> band photometry data in addition to the <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>r</mml:mi> <mml:mi>i</mml:mi> <mml:mi>z</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> bands, providing a fourth band for photometric redshift estimation. Looking forward to the next generation of wide-field surveys, we describe several ongoing improvements to PIFF, which will be the default PSF modeling software for weak lensing analyses for the Vera C. Rubin Observatory’s Legacy Survey of Space and Time.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.274 · 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