Engineering topics

Bridle, S. L.

Publications and source records attributed to Bridle, S. L..

21 records · Page 2

DOE OSTI2020

Dark Energy Survey year 3 results: point spread function modelling

ABSTRACT We introduce a new software package for modelling the point spread function (PSF) of astronomical images, called piff (PSFs In the Full FOV), which we apply to the first three years (known as Y3) of the Dark Energy Survey (DES) data. We describe the relevant details about the algorithms used by piff to model the PSF, including how the PSF model varies across the field of view (FOV). Diagnostic results show that the systematic errors from the PSF modelling are very small over the range of scales that are important for the DES Y3 weak lensing analysis. In particular, the systematic errors from the PSF modelling are significantly smaller than the corresponding results from the DES year one (Y1) analysis. We also briefly describe some planned improvements to piff that we expect to further reduce the modelling errors in future analyses.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2020

μ⋆ masses: weak-lensing calibration of the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 redMaPPer clusters using stellar masses

ABSTRACT We present the weak-lensing mass calibration of the stellar-mass-based μ⋆ mass proxy for redMaPPer galaxy clusters in the Dark Energy Survey Year 1. For the first time, we are able to perform a calibration of μ⋆ at high redshifts, z > 0.33. In a blinded analysis, we use ∼6000 clusters split into 12 subsets spanning the ranges 0.1 ≤ z < 0.65 and μ⋆ up to ${\sim} 5.5 \times 10^{13} \, \mathrm{M}_{\odot }$, and infer the average masses of these subsets through modelling of their stacked weak-lensing signal. In our model, we account for the following sources of systematic uncertainty: shear measurement and photometric redshift errors, miscentring, cluster-member contamination of the source sample, deviations from the Navarro–Frenk–White halo profile, halo triaxiality, and projection effects. We use the inferred masses to estimate the joint mass–μ⋆–z scaling relation given by $\langle M_{200c} | \mu _{\star },z \rangle = M_0 (\mu _{\star }/5.16\times 10^{12} \, \mathrm{M_{\odot }})^{F_{\mu _{\star }}} ((1+z)/1.35)^{G_z}$. We find $M_0= (1.14 \pm 0.07) \times 10^{14} \, \mathrm{M_{\odot }}$ with $F_{\mu _{\star }}= 0.76 \pm 0.06$ and Gz = −1.14 ± 0.37. We discuss the use of μ⋆ as a complementary mass proxy to the well-studied richness λ for: (i) exploring the regimes of low z, λ < 20 and high λ, z ∼ 1; and (ii) testing systematics such as projection effects for applications in cluster cosmology.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2020

The impact of spectroscopic incompleteness in direct calibration of redshift distributions for weak lensing surveys

ABSTRACT Obtaining accurate distributions of galaxy redshifts is a critical aspect of weak lensing cosmology experiments. One of the methods used to estimate and validate redshift distributions is to apply weights to a spectroscopic sample, so that their weighted photometry distribution matches the target sample. In this work, we estimate the selection bias in redshift that is introduced in this procedure. We do so by simulating the process of assembling a spectroscopic sample (including observer-assigned confidence flags) and highlight the impacts of spectroscopic target selection and redshift failures. We use the first year (Y1) weak lensing analysis in Dark Energy Survey (DES) as an example data set but the implications generalize to all similar weak lensing surveys. We find that using colour cuts that are not available to the weak lensing galaxies can introduce biases of up to Δz ∼ 0.04 in the weighted mean redshift of different redshift intervals (Δz ∼ 0.015 in the case most relevant to DES). To assess the impact of incompleteness in spectroscopic samples, we select only objects with high observer-defined confidence flags and compare the weighted mean redshift with the true mean. We find that the mean redshift of the DES Y1 weak lensing sample is typically biased at the Δz = 0.005−0.05 level after the weighting is applied. The bias we uncover can have either sign, depending on the samples and redshift interval considered. For the highest redshift bin, the bias is larger than the uncertainties in the other DES Y1 redshift calibration methods, justifying the decision of not using this method for the redshift estimations. We discuss several methods to mitigate this bias.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗