Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 586

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intrinsic alignment-lensing interference as a contaminant of cosmic shear

Open access
Hirata, Christopher M., Seljak, Uroš·2004·Physical Review D
DOI 10.1103/physrevd.70.063526
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Cosmic shear surveys have great promise as tools for precision cosmology, but can be subject to systematic errors including intrinsic ellipticity correlations of the source galaxies. The intrinsic alignments are believed to be small for deep surveys, but this is based on intrinsic and lensing distortions being uncorrelated. Here we show that the gravitational lensing shear and intrinsic shear need not be independent: correlations between the tidal field and the intrinsic shear cause the intrinsic shear of nearby galaxies to be correlated with the gravitational shear acting on more distant galaxies. We estimate the magnitude of this effect for two simple intrinsic-alignment models: one in which the galaxy ellipticity is linearly related to the tidal field, and one in which it is quadratic in the tidal field as suggested by tidal torque theory. The first model predicts a gravitational-intrinsic ($GI$) correlation that can be much greater than the intrinsic-intrinsic ($II$) correlation for broad redshift distributions, and that remains when galaxies pairs at similar redshifts are rejected. The second model, in its simplest form, predicts no gravitational-intrinsic correlation. In the first model, and assuming a normalization consistent with recently claimed detections of intrinsic correlations, we find that the $GI$ correlation term can exceed the usual $II$ term by $>1$ order of magnitude and the intrinsic correlation induced $B$-mode by 2 orders of magnitude. These interference effects can suppress the lensing power spectrum for a single broad redshift bin by of order $\ensuremath{\sim}10%$ at ${z}_{s}=1$ and $\ensuremath{\sim}30%$ at ${z}_{s}=0.5$. We conclude that, depending on the intrinsic-alignment model, the $GI$ correlation may be the dominant contaminant of the lensing signal and can even affect cross spectra between widely separated bins. We describe two ways to constrain this effect, one based on density-shear correlations and one based on scaling of the cross correlation tomography signal with redshift.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.70.063526

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Cited by

See all 586

Metadata

Authors
Hirata, C. M., & Seljak, U.
Venue
Physical Review D
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2004-09-21
Volume
70
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
DOI
10.1103/physrevd.70.063526
OpenAlex
W2005947070
Cited by
586
References
57
FWCI
5.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.