Cited by 409Cosmology and Gravitation TheoriesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaDark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena

Systematic errors in future weak-lensing surveys: requirements and prospects for self-calibration

Open access
Huterer, D., Takada, M., Bernstein, G., Jain, B.·2006·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

We study the impact of systematic errors on planned weak-lensing surveys and compute the requirements on their contributions so that they are not a dominant source of the cosmological parameter error budget. The generic types of error we consider are multiplicative and additive errors in measurements of shear, as well as photometric redshift errors. In general, more powerful surveys have stronger systematic requirements. For example, for a SuperNova/Acceleration Probe (SNAP)-type survey the multiplicative error in shear needs to be smaller than 1 per cent of the mean shear in any given redshift bin, while the centroids of photometric redshift bins need to be known to be better than 0.003. With about a factor of 2 degradation in cosmological parameter errors, future surveys can enter a self-calibration regime, where the mean systematic biases are self-consistently determined from the survey and only higher order moments of the systematics contribute. Interestingly, once the power-spectrum measurements are combined with the bispectrum, the self-calibration regime in the variation of the equation of state of dark energy wa is attained with only a 20-30 per cent error degradation.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09782.x

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Higher-order shear and galaxy statistics and shear peak counts can improve dark energy constraints and provide self-calibration of various systematics.

    “Higher-order shear and galaxy statistics and shear peak counts can improve dark energy constraints and provide self-calibration of various systematics ( Takada & Jain 2004; Dolney et al. 2006; Huterer et al. 2006; Petri et al. 2016 ) .”

    From LSST: From Science Drivers to Reference Design and Anticipated Data Products (2019) · cites this paper as Huterer et al. 2006

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. S Aldering G. et al., 2004, PASP, submitted (astro-ph/0405232) · arXiv
  2. Bernstein G., 2005, preprint (astro-ph/0503276) · arXiv
  3. Dodelson S., Kolb E. W., Matarrese S., Riotto A., Zhang P., 2005, preprint (astro-ph/0503160) · arXiv
  4. Heymans C. et al., 2005, MNRAS submitted, (astro-ph/0506112) · arXiv
  5. Jarvis M., Jain B., Bernstein G., Dolney D., 2005, preprint (astro- ph/0502243)
  6. Zhang J., Hui L., Stebbins A., 2003, preprint (astro-ph/0312348) · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huterer, D., Takada, M., Bernstein, G., & Jain, B.
Affiliations
  • Tohoku University (JP)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2006-02-11
Volume
366
Issue
1
Pages
101-114
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2102084015
Cited by
409
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 34
FWCI
14.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Dark Matter and Cosmic Phenomena
Keywords
weak gravitational lensing, systematic errors, photometric redshift errors, self-calibration, dark energy equation of state, power spectrum, bispectrum

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