Paper detail

A Systematic Study of Projection Biases in Weak Lensing Analysis

We present a systematic study of projection biases in the weak lensing analysis of the first year of data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) experiment. In the analysis we used a $Λ$CDM model and three two-point correlation functions. We show that these biases are a consequence of projecting, or marginalizing, over parameters like $h$, $Ω_b$, $n_s$ and $Ω_νh^2$ that are both poorly constrained and correlated with the parameters of interest like $Ω_m$, $σ_8$ and $S_8$. Covering the relevant parameter space we show that the projection biases are a function of where the true values of the poorly constrained parameters lie with respect to the parameter priors. For example, biases in the position of the posteriors can exceed the 1.5$σ$ level if the true values of $h$ and $n_s$ are close to the top of the prior's range and the true values of $Ω_b$ and $Ω_νh^2$ are close to the bottom of the range of their priors. We also show that in some cases the 1D credible intervals can be over-specified by as much as 30% and coverage can be as low as 27%. Finally we estimate these projection biases for the analysis of three and six years worth of DES data.

preprint2021arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.