Dark Energy Survey Year 6 Results: Point-Spread Function Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 g band data were excluded due to insufficiently accurate PSF models. For the Y6 weak lensing analysis, we include g band photometry data in addition to the r i z 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".