A generalised method for measuring weak lensing magnification with weighted number counts
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a derivation of a generalized optimally weighted estimator for the weak lensing magnification signal, including a calculation of errors.With this estimator, we present a local method for optimally estimating the local effects of magnification from weak gravitational lensing, using a comparison of number counts in an arbitrary region of space to the expected unmagnified number counts.We show that when equivalent lens and source samples are used, this estimator is simply related to the optimally weighted correlation function estimator used in past work and vice-versa, but this method has the benefits that it can calculate errors with significantly less computational time, that it can handle overlapping lens and source samples, and that it can easily be extended to mass-mapping.We present a proof-of-principle test of this method on data from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey, showing that its calculated magnification signals agree with predictions from model fits to shear data.Finally, we investigate how magnification data can be used to supplement shear data in determining the best-fitting model mass profiles for galaxy dark matter haloes.We find that at redshifts greater than z 0.6, the inclusion of magnification can often significantly improve the constraints on the components of the mass profile which relate to galaxies' local environments relative to shear alone, and in high-redshift low-and medium-mass bins, it can have a higher signal-to-noise than the shear signal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it