Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 403

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Shear Testing Programme 2: Factors affecting high-precision weak-lensing analyses

Open access
Massey, Richard, Heymans, Catherine, Bergé, Joel, Bernstein, Gary, Bridle, Sarah, Clowe, Douglas, Dahle, Håkon, Ellis, Richard, Erben, Thomas, Hetterscheidt, Marco, High, F. William, Hirata, Christopher, Hoekstra, Henk, Hudelot, Patrick, Jarvis, Mike, Johnston, David, Kuijken, Konrad, Margoniner, Vera, Mandelbaum, Rachel, Mellier, Yannick, Nakajima, Reiko, Paulin-Henriksson, Stephane, Peeples, Molly, Roat, Chris, Refregier, Alexandre, Rhodes, Jason, Schrabback, Tim, Schirmer, Mischa, Seljak, Uroš, Semboloni, Elisabetta, Van Waerbeke, Ludovic·2007·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

The Shear Testing Programme (STEP) is a collaborative project to improve the accuracy and reliability of weak-lensing measurement, in preparation for the next generation of wide-field surveys. We review 16 current and emerging shear-measurement methods in a common language, and assess their performance by running them (blindly) on simulated images that contain a known shear signal. We determine the common features of algorithms that most successfully recover the input parameters. A desirable goal would be the combination of their best elements into one ultimate shear-measurement method. In this analysis, we achieve previously unattained discriminatory precision via a combination of more extensive simulations and pairs of galaxy images that have been rotated with respect to each other. That removes the otherwise overwhelming noise from their intrinsic ellipticities. Finally, the robustness of our simulation approach is confirmed by testing the relative calibration of methods on real data. Weak-lensing measurements have improved since the first STEP paper. Several methods now consistently achieve better than 2 per cent precision, and are still being developed. However, we can now distinguish all methods from perfect performance. Our main concern continues to be the potential for a multiplicative shear calibration bias: not least because this cannot be internally calibrated with real data. We determine which galaxy populations are responsible for bias and, by adjusting the simulated observing conditions, we also investigate the effects of instrumental and atmospheric parameters. The simulated point spread functions are not allowed to vary spatially, to avoid additional confusion from interpolation errors. We have isolated several previously unrecognized aspects of galaxy shape measurement, in which focused development could provide further progress towards the sub-per cent level of precision desired for future surveys. These areas include the suitable treatment of image pixellization and galaxy morphology evolution. Ignoring the former effect affects the measurement of shear in different directions, leading to an overall underestimation of shear and hence the amplitude of the matter power spectrum. Ignoring the second effect could affect the calibration of shear estimators as a function of galaxy redshift, and the evolution of the lensing signal, which will be vital to measure parameters including the dark energy equation of state.

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.1365-2966.2006.11315.x

Cites

59 of 59 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 59 references

Cited by

See all 403

Metadata

Authors
Massey, R., Heymans, C., Bergé, J., Bernstein, G., Bridle, S., Clowe, D., Dahle, H., Ellis, R., Erben, T., Hetterscheidt, M., High, F. W., Hirata, C., Hoekstra, H., Hudelot, P., Jarvis, M., Johnston, D., Kuijken, K., Margoniner, V., Mandelbaum, R., Mellier, Y., Nakajima, R., Paulin-Henriksson, S., Peeples, M., Roat, C., Refregier, A., Rhodes, J., Schrabback, T., Schirmer, M., Seljak, U., Semboloni, E., & Van Waerbeke, L.
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2007-03-21
Volume
376
Issue
1
Pages
13-38
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2116952190
Cited by
403
References
59
FWCI
22.95
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 2: Factors affecting high-precision weak-lensing analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11315.x
The paper
Massey, R., Heymans, C., Bergé, J., Bernstein, G., Bridle, S., Clowe, D., Dahle, H., Ellis, R., Erben, T., Hetterscheidt, M., High, F. W., Hirata, C., Hoekstra, H., Hudelot, P., Jarvis, M., Johnston, D., Kuijken, K., Margoniner, V., Mandelbaum, R., . . . Van Waerbeke, L. (2007). The Shear Testing Programme 2: Factors affecting high-precision weak-lensing analyses. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11315.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.