The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Shapes and Shears, Stars and Smears: Optimal Measurements for Weak Lensing
Open accessAbstract
We present the theoretical and analytical bases of optimal techniques to measure weak gravitational shear from images of galaxies. We first characterize the geometric space of shears and ellipticity and then use this geometric interpretation to analyze images. The steps of this analysis include measurement of object shapes on images, combining measurements of a given galaxy on different images, estimating the underlying shear from an ensemble of galaxy shapes, and compensating for the systematic effects of image distortion, bias from point-spread function (PSF) asymmetries, and "dilution" of the signal by the seeing. These methods minimize the ellipticity measurement noise, provide calculable shear uncertainty estimates, and allow removal of systematic contamination by PSF effects to arbitrary precision. Galaxy images and PSFs are expressed as "Laguerre expansions," a two-dimensional generalization of the Edgeworth expansion, making the PSF correction and shape measurement relatively straightforward and computationally efficient. We also discuss sources of noise-induced bias in weak-lensing measurements—selection biases, and "centroid" biases arising from noise rectification—and provide a solution for these and previously identified biases.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Kauffmann, G., Hirata, C. M., & Brinkmann, J. (2006) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10156.x · Cited by 728
Intrinsic alignment-lensing interference as a contaminant of cosmic shear
Hirata, C. M., & Seljak, U. (2004) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.063526 · Cited by 586
Cosmology with cosmic shear observations: a review
Kilbinger, M. (2015) · Reports on Progress in Physics · doi:10.1088/0034-4885/78/8/086901 · Cited by 604
The Shear Testing Programme – I. Weak lensing analysis of simulated ground-based observations
Heymans, C., Van Waerbeke, L., Bacon, D., Berge, J., Bernstein, G., Bertin, E., Bridle, S., Brown, M. L., Clowe, D., Dahle, H., et al. (2006) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10198.x · Cited by 508
Self-citationSystematic errors in future weak-lensing surveys: requirements and prospects for self-calibration
Huterer, D., Takada, M., Bernstein, G., & Jain, B. (2006) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09782.x · Cited by 409
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Bernstein, G. M., & Jarvis, M.
- Venue
- The Astronomical Journal
- Publisher
- American Astronomical Society
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 123
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 583-618
- ISSN
- 0004-6256 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-3881
- OpenAlex
- W2063648988
- Cited by
- 523
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Shapes and Shears, Stars and Smears: Optimal Measurements for Weak Lensing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/338085
- The paper
- Bernstein, G. M., & Jarvis, M. (2002). Shapes and Shears, Stars and Smears: Optimal Measurements for Weak Lensing. The Astronomical Journal. https://doi.org/10.1086/338085
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.