1 / 16

OULE3 - Weak Lensing WP

OULE3 - Weak Lensing WP. Managers: Jean-Luc Starck , Filipe Abdalla (implementation) Benjamin Joachimi , Reiko Nakajima (validation) ~25 people ~23 implementation ~7 validation. Mainly to raise questions and discussions!. The WL WP – validation and implementation:.

darva
Download Presentation

OULE3 - Weak Lensing WP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. OULE3 - Weak Lensing WP • Managers: • Jean-Luc Starck, Filipe Abdalla (implementation) • Benjamin Joachimi, Reiko Nakajima (validation) • ~25 people ~23 implementation ~7 validation. Mainly to raise questions and discussions!

  2. The WL WP – validation and implementation: • Definition, development and testing of the algorithms for: • the computation of the tomographic (redshift-space) 2-pt (requirement) and 3-pt (goal) shear-shear, shear-galaxy, galaxy-magnification and shear-magnification correlation functions and power spectra/bispectra. Effects of masking, intrinsic alignments and nullingshould be taken into account. • The computation of the continuous (spherical harmonic) shear-shear and shear-galaxy power spectrum and bispectrum (goal). Effects of masking, intrinsic alignments and nulling should be taken into account. • Likelihood code to include all potential cosmology-model-independent errors on the shear-shear, shear-galaxy, galaxy-magnification and shear-magnification 2pt correlation functions and power spectra (requirement). • the algorithms for computation of the tomographic 2D mass, convergence and potential maps (requirement). Effects of masking should be taken into account. • The computation of the tomographic 3D mass, convergence and potential maps and 3D maps as a function of redshift (goal). Effects of masking should be taken into account.

  3. Other relevant WP’s for the WL crowd • Definition and testing of the mask: • algorithms for the computation of the selection functions in the photometric Wide and Deep galaxy surveys (requirement) • algorithms for the computation of the selection functions in the spectroscopic Wide and Deep galaxy surveys (requirement) • algorithms for the computation of the luminosity function in different bands and of the stellar mass function, and corresponding error analysis (goal) • Testing of the algorithms for the computation of the selection using mock photometric and spectroscopic surveys (requirement) • Testing of the algorithms for the computation of the luminosity and stellar mass functions (goal)

  4. Computation of the power spectra and correlation functions • From SWG discussion yesterday: • there are many codes which produce a power spectrum and a correlation function • lots of codes are publically available, correlation function codes more well develloped, Athena etc... however: • none power spectra codes have been used on data yet! • need to assess the accuracy of such codes: are they good enough for Euclid? • need to see if there are better ways of measuring the anisotropies spectrum: talk by Rassat: 2D vs 3D vs spherical Bessel • measurement of the cls via maximum likelihood? Is a maximum likelihood accurate under the assumption that the filed is not Gaussian? Does that include biases in the final DE/cosmology requirements? • measurements of the noise properties of galaxies -> Poisson shot noise? Correlated noise? What is the l_{max} needed? • How to deal with PDFs? Is using the photo-z bins ideal? What about shear PDFs?

  5. Intrinsic alignments: nulling • Data products need to science ready: • Intrinsic alignments have to be dealt with on a data level (nulling) and probably on the modelling side as well by taking into account the cross correlation functions. • There should be overlap between SWGs and OULE3 here. • position shear cross correlation • position-position will give magnification. • nulling on IA in the data -> LE3 • modelling probably SWG ground. • Estimators for the nulled power spectra? Have they been defined, are they optimal? Problems with photo-z errors at this stage? • Can we filter the maps and create nulled maps?

  6. Mass maps and intrinsic alignments • Many standard mass maps reconstruction methods. Standard aperture mass methods, recently wavelet methods. • Mass maps have to be reliable e.g. For mass calibration for clusters. Should not be just pretty pictures. • What is the bias from intrinsic alignments on the mass maps? What is the bias from different method reconstructions? What are the requirements on the bias on our maps? • Is there a method that takes account of intrinsic alignments? Currently I think not! • Is it possible to devise one with the maps of the cross correlations?

  7. Likelihood codes • These will include data covariance (OU ground) and model covariance (SWG ground) • Possible that these are independent but possible that they can be significantly correlated. • In the former case a close work needs to happen in this area between the SWG and the OUs. • Structures for this need to be defined and outlined, to be agreed... • Need to define the inputs for such a code, are the data and model covariances are independent or not? • If we have a set of nulled spectra, how to write a weighted likelihood?

  8. WL validation – Work Package tasks • Validation: check that implemented code meets requirements on both statistical & systematic errors • Required tasks: • Validate algorithm for 2-point real-space statistics of shear-shear, shear-galaxy, and possibly (photometric) galaxy-galaxy correlations (to measure magnification effects) • Validate algorithm for 2-point Fourier-space statistics • Validate algorithm for tomographic 2D mass/potential maps • Validate algorithm for covariances/full likelihoods of all 2-point statistics • Goals: • Validate algorithm for 3-point statistics of shear and galaxy correlations • Validate algorithm for 3D mass/potential maps

  9. WL validation – Systematics validation for shear statistics • Stellar shape/position – shear correlations: • test for PSF effects, masking, background subtraction • → partly/completely done by OU-SHE? • Nulled shear statistics as function of survey time, solar aspect • angle, solar radiation, dithers, etc.: • test for PSF effects, CTI, background subtraction • → need to avoid cosmology dependence due to cosmic variance in • uncertainty of residuals! • Shear statistics in solar system/galactic/detector coordinates: • test for PSF effects, CTI, zodiacal light, masking • Inhomogeneity/anisotropy/parity-dependent statistics: • test for PSF effects, CTI, photometric zero-points • → ask Theory SWG for fundamental limits of inhomogeneity etc. in • exotic cosmological models?

  10. WL validation – Systematics validation for mass maps etc. • B-mode maps • → cosmology-dependent for Euclid accuracy • EB map correlation • → cannot be used if parity-violating cosmologies viable • Consistency relations between convergence and shear (?) • Null tests with 2 maps computed from various galaxy samples • Further validation tests needed for: • 3point statistics • 3D mass maps • Galaxy-galaxy lensing • Magnification (both size and number density modifications) • Covariances (and cross-variances?) for all probes

  11. WL validation – Open issues • Need S/N requirement on shear power spectrum to set cosmology- • independent requirements on validation of statistical errors? • Need new science requirements on tolerable errors on errors of • cosmological parameters? What about systematic effects on power • spectrum/ correlation function covariances? • Who validates validation code? → Implementation WP? • Who validates SDC code? → Validation WP? • Should the final data product be a shear power spectrum or an • ellipticity power spectrum? Or: Are intrinsic alignments a systematic • or a cosmological signal? • The systematics testing is going to be a joint project with OU-SHE • → Coordinate with OU-SHE systematics WP

  12. WL validation – Plans for the next ~1 year • Locate & recruit expertise/manpower/code/simulations available within • Euclid ground segment and SWGs • Identify effects in the data/steps in the pipeline that require validation • at the 2-point statistics level (in coordination with OU-SHE) • Identify the key validation algorithms for all required data products • Requirements flowdown from LE0 to statistical validation requirements • Systematics requirement flowdown from LE1 to systematic validation • requirements • Set requirements on simulations/mock surveys needed for testing • validation algorithms as well as WP Implementation algorithms with • validation code (e.g. number of realisations, systematics included)

  13. Simulations: short term • One possibility is to create simulations with simple Gaussian assumptions and the correct amount of correlations. • Some codes available: Manchester/UCL • *) Fast simulation code • - by Michael Brown (2011MRAS..410..2057B)/ indep version at UCL • - contains IA • - fast but not based on N-body sims, but a simple Gaussian realization of shear and IA • - combine with Cl code to produce input model power spectra • Problems that these will not have the correct non-Gaussianities. • is it a short task to create log-normal simulations of the Cls? Should we go directly to n-body? • log-normal code at UCL but no IA, no cross correlations. • stepwise -> MINI simulations slides from Jean-Luc. Adding in a progressive manner: IA, masking, correlated noise/mask, non-Gaussian density fields...

  14. Simulations wish list mid/long term: • Have few sets of simulations that can: • be understood • have the right number of ‘degrees of freedom’ • some lower level simulations • as flexible as possible, • i.e. simulations for 3D might be v different. • hopefully be a small set with increasing complications. • All simulations needed even if made in-house should pass by OU-SIM and simulations SWG if only for a sanity check. • Ultimatelly we want an end-to-end simulation from OU-SIM/Simulations SWG

  15. Gathering of current codes • Some preliminary list of software is already being gathered: • Cl codes (at UCL, Edinburgh, ManUni,...), • correlation function codes(Athena (Kilbinger), Hilbert) • three point code by Jarvis available • 2d and 3d mapping code • (PatricSimon, Saclay, Edin...) • talk by Rassat, 3DEX • list needs to be comprehensive at some point... • BUT probably a task for later when we have sims in place

  16. Conclusions • Outlined the data products • Some caveats on each task outlined • Outlined the activities validation tasks • Next steps are: • *to define the document, links, sub tasks in much more detail. This will be one of our aims over the next year. • *to discussion the mocks needed for the tasks above to be performed to the needed accuracy. • -> we want these to arise over the splinter session.

More Related