Paper detail

Mitigating Systematic Errors in Angular Correlation Function Measurements from Wide Field Surveys

We present an investigation into the effects of survey systematics such as varying depth, point spread function (PSF) size, and extinction on the galaxy selection and correlation in photometric, multi-epoch, wide area surveys. We take the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS) as an example. Variations in galaxy selection due to systematics are found to cause density fluctuations of up to 10% for some small fraction of the area for most galaxy redshift slices and as much as 50% for some extreme cases of faint high-redshift samples. This results in correlations of galaxies against survey systematics of order $\sim$1% when averaged over the survey area. We present an empirical method for mitigating these systematic correlations from measurements of angular correlation functions using weighted random points. These weighted random catalogs are estimated from the observed galaxy over densities by mapping these to survey parameters. We are able to model and mitigate the effect of systematic correlations allowing for non-linear dependencies of density on systematics. Applied to CFHTLenS we find that the method reduces spurious correlations in the data by a factor two for most galaxy samples and as much as an order of magnitude in others. Such a treatment is particularly important for an unbiased estimation of very small correlation signals, as e.g. from weak gravitational lensing magnification bias. We impose a criterion for using a galaxy sample in a magnification measurement of the majority of the systematic correlations show improvement and are less than 10% of the expected magnification signal when combined in the galaxy cross correlation. After correction the galaxy samples in CFHTLenS satisfy this criterion for $z_{\rm phot}<0.9$ and will be used in a future analysis of magnification.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.