Paper detail

Simulations of Weak Gravitational Lensing - II : Including Finite Support Effects in Cosmic Shear Covariance Matrices

(Abridged) We investigate and quantify the impact of finite simulation volume on weak lensing two- and four-point statistics. These {\it finite support} (FS) effects are modelled for several estimators, simulation box sizes and source redshifts, and validated against a new large suite of 500 $N$-body simulations. The comparison reveals that our theoretical model is accurate to better than 5 per cent for the shear correlation function $ξ_{+}(θ)$ and its error. We find that the most important quantities for FS modelling is the ratio between the measured angle $θ$ and the angular size of the simulation box at the source redshift, $θ_{box}(z_s)$, or the multipole equivalent $\ell / \ell_{box}(z_s)$. When this ratio reaches 0.1, independently of the source redshift, the shear correlation function $ξ_+$ is suppressed by 5, 10, 20 and 25 percent for $L_{box}= 1000$, $500$, $250$ and $147\mbox{Mpc}/h$ respectively. When it reaches 0.2, the suppression exceeds 25 percent even for the largest box. The same effect is observed in $ξ_{-}(θ)$, but at much larger angles. This has important consequences for cosmological analyses using $N$-body simulations to calibrate the impact of non-linear gravitational clustering or to estimate errors and systematics effects, and should not be overlooked. We propose simple semi-analytic solutions to correct for these finite box effects with and without the presence of survey masks, and the method can be generalized to any weak lensing estimator. This offers a graceful solution to the important problem of estimating accurate covariance matrices for weak lensing studies: there is no need to run extra large simulation volumes, as long as the box effects are corrected.

preprint2014arXivOpen 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.