No Arabic abstract
With the advent of large-scale weak lensing surveys there is a need to understand how realistic, scale-dependent systematics bias cosmic shear and dark energy measurements, and how they can be removed. Here we describe how spatial variations in the amplitude and orientation of realistic image distortions convolve with the measured shear field, mixing the even-parity convergence and odd-parity modes, and bias the shear power spectrum. Many of these biases can be removed by calibration to external data, the survey itself, or by modelling in simulations. The uncertainty in the calibration must be marginalised over and we calculate how this propagates into parameter estimation, degrading the dark energy Figure-of-Merit. We find that noise-like biases affect dark energy measurements the most, while spikes in the bias power have the least impact, reflecting their correlation with the effect of cosmological parameters. We argue that in order to remove systematic biases in cosmic shear surveys and maintain statistical power effort should be put into improving the accuracy of the bias calibration rather than minimising the size of the bias. In general, this appears to be a weaker condition for bias removal. We also investigate how to minimise the size of the calibration set for a fixed reduction in the Figure-of-Merit. These results can be used to model the effect of biases and calibration on a cosmic shear survey accurately, assess their impact on the measurement of modified gravity and dark energy models, and to optimise surveys and calibration requirements.
Stage IV weak lensing experiments will offer more than an order of magnitude leap in precision. We must therefore ensure that our analyses remain accurate in this new era. Accordingly, previously ignored systematic effects must be addressed. In this work, we evaluate the impact of the reduced shear approximation and magnification bias, on the information obtained from the angular power spectrum. To first-order, the statistics of reduced shear, a combination of shear and convergence, are taken to be equal to those of shear. However, this approximation can induce a bias in the cosmological parameters that can no longer be neglected. A separate bias arises from the statistics of shear being altered by the preferential selection of galaxies and the dilution of their surface densities, in high-magnification regions. The corrections for these systematic effects take similar forms, allowing them to be treated together. We calculated the impact of neglecting these effects on the cosmological parameters that would be determined from Euclid, using cosmic shear tomography. To do so, we employed the Fisher matrix formalism, and included the impact of the super-sample covariance. We also demonstrate how the reduced shear correction can be calculated using a lognormal field forward modelling approach. These effects cause significant biases in Omega_m, sigma_8, n_s, Omega_DE, w_0, and w_a of -0.53 sigma, 0.43 sigma, -0.34 sigma, 1.36 sigma, -0.68 sigma, and 1.21 sigma, respectively. We then show that these lensing biases interact with another systematic: the intrinsic alignment of galaxies. Accordingly, we develop the formalism for an intrinsic alignment-enhanced lensing bias correction. Applying this to Euclid, we find that the additional terms introduced by this correction are sub-dominant.
Exploiting the full statistical power of future cosmic shear surveys will necessitate improvements to the accuracy with which the gravitational lensing signal is measured. We present a framework for calibrating shear with image simulations that demonstrates the importance of including realistic correlations between galaxy morphology, size and more importantly, photometric redshifts. This realism is essential so that selection and shape measurement biases can be calibrated accurately for a tomographic cosmic shear analysis. We emulate Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS) observations of the COSMOS field using morphological information from {it Hubble} Space Telescope imaging, faithfully reproducing the measured galaxy properties from KiDS observations of the same field. We calibrate our shear measurements from lensfit, and find through a range of sensitivity tests that lensfit is robust and unbiased within the allowed 2 per cent tolerance of our study. Our results show that the calibration has to be performed by selecting the tomographic samples in the simulations, consistent with the actual cosmic shear analysis, because the joint distributions of galaxy properties are found to vary with redshift. Ignoring this redshift variation could result in misestimating the shear bias by an amount that exceeds the allowed tolerance. To improve the calibration for future cosmic shear analyses, it will be essential to also correctly account for the measurement of photometric redshifts, which requires simulating multi-band observations.
Cosmic shear measurements rely on our ability to measure and correct the Point Spread Function (PSF) of the observations. This PSF is measured using stars in the field, which give a noisy measure at random points in the field. Using Wiener filtering, we show how errors in this PSF correction process propagate into shear power spectrum errors. This allows us to test future space-based missions, such as Euclid or JDEM, thereby allowing us to set clear engineering specifications on PSF variability. For ground-based surveys, where the variability of the PSF is dominated by the environment, we briefly discuss how our approach can also be used to study the potential of mitigation techniques such as correlating galaxy shapes in different exposures. To illustrate our approach we show that for a Euclid-like survey to be statistics limited, an initial pre-correction PSF ellipticity power spectrum, with a power-law slope of -3 must have an amplitude at l =1000 of less than 2 x 10^{-13}. This is 1500 times smaller than the typical lensing signal at this scale. We also find that the power spectrum of PSF size dR^2) at this scale must be below 2 x 10^{-12}. Public code available as part of iCosmo at http://www.icosmo.org
Density-estimation likelihood-free inference (DELFI) has recently been proposed as an efficient method for simulation-based cosmological parameter inference. Compared to the standard likelihood-based Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach, DELFI has several advantages: it is highly parallelizable, there is no need to assume a possibly incorrect functional form for the likelihood and complicated effects (e.g the mask and detector systematics) are easier to handle with forward models. In light of this, we present two DELFI pipelines to perform weak lensing parameter inference with lognormal realizations of the tomographic shear field -- using the C_l summary statistic. The first pipeline accounts for the non-Gaussianities of the shear field, intrinsic alignments and photometric-redshift error. We validate that it is accurate enough for Stage III experiments and estimate that O(1000) simulations are needed to perform inference on Stage IV data. By comparing the second DELFI pipeline, which makes no assumption about the functional form of the likelihood, with the standard MCMC approach, which assumes a Gaussian likelihood, we test the impact of the Gaussian likelihood approximation in the MCMC analysis. We find it has a negligible impact on Stage IV parameter constraints. Our pipeline is a step towards seamlessly propagating all data-processing, instrumental, theoretical and astrophysical systematics through to the final parameter constraints.
Stripe 82 in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey was observed multiple times, allowing deeper images to be constructed by coadding the data. Here we analyze the ellipticities of background galaxies in this 275 square degree region, searching for evidence of distortions due to cosmic shear. The E-mode is detected in both real and Fourier space with $>5$-$sigma$ significance on degree scales, while the B-mode is consistent with zero as expected. The amplitude of the signal constrains the combination of the matter density $Omega_m$ and fluctuation amplitude $sigma_8$ to be $Omega_m^{0.7}sigma_8 = 0.252^{+0.032}_{-0.052}$.