Paper detail

Origins of weak lensing systematics, and requirements on future instrumentation (or knowledge of instrumentation)

The first half of this paper explores the origin of systematic biases in the measurement of weak gravitational lensing. Compared to previous work, we expand the investigation of PSF instability and fold in for the first time the effects of non-idealities in electronic imaging detectors and imperfect galaxy shape measurement algorithms. Together, these now explain the additive A(l) and multiplicative M(l) systematics typically reported in current lensing measurements. We find that overall performance is driven by a product of a telescope/camera's *absolute performance*, and our *knowledge about its performance*. The second half of this paper propagates any residual shear measurement biases through to their effect on cosmological parameter constraints. Fully exploiting the statistical power of Stage IV weak lensing surveys will require additive biases A<1.8e-12 and multiplicative biases M<4.0e-3. These can be allocated between individual budgets in hardware, calibration data and software, using results from the first half of the paper. If instrumentation is stable and well-calibrated, we find extant shear measurement software from GREAT10 already meet requirements on galaxies detected at S/N=40. Averaging over a population of galaxies with a realistic distribution of sizes, it also meets requirements for a 2D cosmic shear analysis from space. If used on fainter galaxies or for 3D cosmic shear tomography, existing algorithms would need calibration on simulations to avoid introducing bias at a level similar to the statistical error. Requirements on hardware and calibration data are discussed in more detail in a companion paper. Our analysis is intentionally general, but is specifically being used to drive the hardware and ground segment performance budget for the design of the European Space Agency's recently-selected Euclid mission.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access14 authors2 topics

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.

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.