Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 508

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Shear Testing Programme – I. Weak lensing analysis of simulated ground-based observations

Open access
Heymans, Catherine, Van Waerbeke, Ludovic, Bacon, David, Berge, Joel, Bernstein, Gary, Bertin, Emmanuel, Bridle, Sarah, Brown, Michael L., Clowe, Douglas, Dahle, Håkon, Erben, Thomas, Gray, Meghan, Hetterscheidt, Marco, Hoekstra, Henk, Hudelot, Patrick, Jarvis, Mike, Kuijken, Konrad, Margoniner, Vera, Massey, Richard, Mellier, Yannick, Nakajima, Reiko, Refregier, Alexandre, Rhodes, Jason, Schrabback, Tim, Wittman, David·2006·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

The Shear Testing Programme (STEP) is a collaborative project to improve the accuracy and reliability of all weak lensing measurements in preparation for the next generation of wide-field surveys. In this first STEP paper, we present the results of a blind analysis of simulated ground-based observations of relatively simple galaxy morphologies. The most successful methods are shown to achieve percent level accuracy. From the cosmic shear pipelines that have been used to constrain cosmology, we find weak lensing shear measured to an accuracy that is within the statistical errors of current weak lensing analyses, with shear measurements accurate to better than 7 per cent. The dominant source of measurement error is shown to arise from calibration uncertainties where the measured shear is over or underestimated by a constant multiplicative factor. This is of concern as calibration errors cannot be detected through standard diagnostic tests. The measured calibration errors appear to result from stellar contamination, false object detection, the shear measurement method itself, selection bias and/or the use of biased weights. Additive systematics (false detections of shear) resulting from residual point-spread function anisotropy are, in most cases, reduced to below an equivalent shear of 0.001, an order of magnitude below cosmic shear distortions on the scales probed by current surveys. Our results provide a snapshot view of the accuracy of current ground-based weak lensing methods and a benchmark upon which we can improve. To this end we provide descriptions of each method tested and include details of the eight different implementations of the commonly used Kaiser, Squires & Broadhurst method (KSB+) to aid the improvement of future KSB+ analyses.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10198.x

Cites

71 of 71 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

Show all 71 references

Cited by

See all 508

Metadata

Authors
Heymans, C., Van Waerbeke, L., Bacon, D., Berge, J., Bernstein, G., Bertin, E., Bridle, S., Brown, M. L., Clowe, D., Dahle, H., Erben, T., Gray, M., Hetterscheidt, M., Hoekstra, H., Hudelot, P., Jarvis, M., Kuijken, K., Margoniner, V., Massey, R., Mellier, Y., Nakajima, R., Refregier, A., Rhodes, J., Schrabback, T., & Wittman, D.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2006-04-13
Volume
368
Issue
3
Pages
1323-1339
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2098596607
Cited by
508
References
71
FWCI
21.21
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: The Shear Testing Programme – I. Weak lensing analysis of simulated ground-based observations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10198.x
The paper
Heymans, C., Van Waerbeke, L., Bacon, D., Berge, J., Bernstein, G., Bertin, E., Bridle, S., Brown, M. L., Clowe, D., Dahle, H., Erben, T., Gray, M., Hetterscheidt, M., Hoekstra, H., Hudelot, P., Jarvis, M., Kuijken, K., Margoniner, V., Massey, R., . . . Wittman, D. (2006). The Shear Testing Programme – I. Weak lensing analysis of simulated ground-based observations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10198.x

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.