Systematic errors in future weak-lensing surveys: requirements and prospects for self-calibration

By D. Huterer, M. Takada, G. Bernstein, B. Jain. 2005

314 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We study the impact of systematic errors on planned weak-lensing surveys and compute the requirements on their contributions so that they are not a dominant source of the cosmological parameter error budget. The generic types of error we consider are multiplicative and additive errors in measurements of shear, as well as photometric redshift errors. In general, more powerful surveys have stronger systematic requirements. For example, for a SuperNova/Acceleration Probe (SNAP)-type survey the multiplicative error in shear needs to be smaller than 1 per cent of the mean shear in any given redshift bin, while the centroids of photometric redshift bins need to be known to be better than 0.003. With about a factor of 2 degradation in cosmological parameter errors, future surveys can enter a self-calibration regime, where the mean systematic biases are self-consistently determined from the survey and only higher order moments of the systematics contribute. Interestingly, once the power-spectrum measurements are combined with the bispectrum, the self-calibration regime in the variation of the equation of state of dark energy w a is attained with only a 20‐30 per cent error degradation. Ke yw ords: cosmological parameters ‐ large-scale structure of Universe.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6d5b339b98a42292a0de4f81e9b0886c0f9227cc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

Estimating the redshift distribution of photometric galaxy samples – II. Applications and tests of a new method (2008, background): “The power of these surveys to constrain cosmological parameters will be limited in part by the accuracy with which the galaxy redshift distributions can be deter- ⋆ mvlima@uchicago.edu mined (Huterer et al. 2004, 2006; Zhan & Knox 2006; Zhan 2006; Ma et al. 2006; Lima & Hu 2007).”
Dark energy constraints from cosmic shear power spectra: impact of intrinsic alignments on photometric redshift requirements (2007, background): “This follows previous work (Huterer et al. 2006; Ma et al. 2006; Jain et al. 2007; Amara and Refregier 2006), which has also discussed the numbers of spectroscopic redshifts needed to obtain these priors.”
CARS: the CFHTLS-Archive-Research Survey. I. Five-band multi-colour data from 37 sq. deg. CFHTLS-wid (2008, background): “However, we need to reliably separate galaxies into redshift bins and we require a precise understanding ofour errors concerning redshift misidentifications and inter-bin contamination factors (see e.g. Huterer et al. 2006).”
The Intrinsic Alignment of Galaxies and its Impact on Weak Gravitational Lensing in an Era of Precision Cosmology (2014, methodology): “…Ade et al., 2013b,c; Das et al., 2014) have been suggested as a method for calibrating multiplicative biases in galaxy lensing (Vallinotto, 2012; Das et al., 2013), which are difficult to constrain and degenerate with the growth function (e.g., Huterer et al. (2006); Amara and Réfrégier (2008)).”
Results of the GREAT08 Challenge?: an image analysis competition for cosmological lensing: Results o (2009, methodology): “There is now much discussion about obtaining high-quality galaxy distances using spectroscopic redshifts to calibrate approximate methods to solve (i) (Ma, Hu & Huterer 2005; Huterer et al. 2006a; Bernstein & Ma 2008; Kitching, Taylor & Heavens 2008c; Bernstein & Huterer 2010).”
The Shear Testing Programme – I. Weak lensing analysis of simulated ground-based observations (2005, background): “…errors, it can only be directly detected through the cosmic shear analysis of image simulations, although see the discussion on self-calibration in Huterer et al. (2006) and Hirata et al. (2004) and Mandelbaum et al. (2005) for model-dependent estimates of shear calibration errors in the Sloan…”
Cosmology from the Chinese Space Station Optical Survey (CSS-OS) (2019, methodology): “This enhancement is due to several advantages of the CSST WL survey, e.g the large survey area (17500 deg2), excellent image quality (2-d Gaussian PSF shape), and accurate photo-z calibration, which can efficiently suppress both statistical and systematical errors.”
Galaxy Alignments: Observations and Impact on Cosmology (2015, background): “…extended to make an estimate of the bias on cosmological parameters, ∆pα, when an incorrect cosmological 8http://www.euclid-ec.org/ model is assumed (Huterer et al. 2006; see also Amara & Réfrégier 2008 and Appendix A of Joachimi et al. 2011): ∆pα = ∑ β F−1αβ ∑ ` ∑ i≤ j;m≤n ∆C(i j) (`) ( Cov […”
PHAT: PHoto-z Accuracy Testing (2010, background): “To fully exploit the power of these huge, future data sets, photo-z’s with a very low level of residual systematics are needed (e.g. Huterer et al. 2006).”
Optimal Surveys for Weak Lensing Tomography (2006, background): “Future lensing surveys have set 0.1% as their target uncertainties on shear measurements (Huterer et al. 2006; van Waerbeke et al. 2006; Réfrégier et al. 2006), γ, which translates into an uncertainty of 0.2% in Cℓ.”
LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products (2008, background): “• Higher-order shear and galaxy statistics that can 26 improve dark energy constraints and provide selfcalibration of various systematics (Takada & Jain 2004; Dolney, Jain & Takada 2006; Huterer et al. 2006).”
CFHTLenS revisited: assessing concordance with Planck including astrophysical systematics (2016, background): “On the observational front, there are photometric redshift uncertainties (also denoted as ‘photo-z’; e.g. Huterer et al. 2006; Ma, Hu & Huterer 2006; Bernstein & Huterer 2010; Bonnett et al. 2016) and intrinsic alignments (IA) of galaxies (e.g. Hirata & Seljak 2004; Bridle & King 2007; Joachimi et…”
Cosmic Discordance: Are Planck CMB and CFHTLenS weak lensing measurements out of tune? (2014, background): “As a rule of thumb, equation 24 from Huterer et al. (2006) tells us that the lensing power spectrum (at l = 1000 and assuming all source galaxies are at zs = 1) has dependence Pκ ∝ σ2.”
Constraints on intrinsic alignment contamination of weak lensing surveys using the MegaZ-LRG sample (2010, methodology): “With the Fisher matrix, one can calculate the bias on a cosmological parameter via (e.g. Kim et al. 2004; Huterer & Takada 2005; Huterer et al. 2006; Taylor et al. 2007; Amara & Réfrégier 2008; Kitching et al. 2009; Joachimi & Schneider 2009) b(pµ) = ∑ ν ( F−1 ) µν ∑ ℓ,i≤ j,k≤l [ C(i j)II (ℓ) +C (i…”