Consistent cosmic shear in the face of systematics: a
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyse three public cosmic shear surveys; the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS-450), the Dark Energy Survey (DES-SV) and the Canada France Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS). Adopting the “COSEBIs” statistic to cleanly and completely separate the lensing E-modes from the non-lensing B-modes, we detect B-modes in KiDS-450 and CFHTLenS at the level of ∼2.7σ. For DES-SV we detect B-modes at the level of 2.8σ in a non-tomographic analysis, increasing to a 5.5σB-mode detection in a tomographic analysis. In order to understand the origin of these detected B-modes we measure the B-mode signature of a range of different simulated systematics including PSF leakage, random but correlated PSF modelling errors, camera-based additive shear bias and photometric redshift selection bias. We show that any correlation between photometric-noise and the relative orientation of the galaxy to the point-spread-function leads to an ellipticity selection bias in tomographic analyses. This work therefore introduces a new systematic for future lensing surveys to consider. We find that the B-modes in DES-SV appear similar to a superposition of the B-mode signatures from all of the systematics simulated. The KiDS-450 and CFHTLenS B-mode measurements show features that are consistent with a repeating additive shear bias.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".