170 likes | 268 Views
Shear measurements in simulated SNAP images with realistic PSFs Håkon Dahle, Stephanie Jouvel, Jean-Paul Kneib, Eric Prieto, Sebastien Vives, Bruno Milliard Laboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille (LAM), France. Motivation. STEP-like simulations for SNAP, with PSF (800nm) from optical design
E N D
Shear measurements in simulated SNAP images with realistic PSFs Håkon Dahle, Stephanie Jouvel, Jean-Paul Kneib, Eric Prieto, Sebastien Vives, Bruno MilliardLaboratoire d’Astrophysique de Marseille (LAM), France JPL WL from space meeting
Motivation STEP-like simulations for SNAP, with PSF (800nm) from optical design Include effects of : jitter, charge diffusion, sky background, detector noise (no CTE or diffraction spikes) Dithering and re-sampling KSB+ analysis: Shear recovery as function of focus, distance from optical axis JPL WL from space meeting
Skymaker simulations 34x34 grid of galaxies in 4 simulated exposures; ditherered, re-sampled and combined 0.1’’ pixels --> 0.06’’ pixels; 34132 PSF from 49 stars All galaxies have the same intrinsic ellipticity (e = 0.25), but random orientations 5 magnitude bins (25.0,26.0,27.0,28.0,28.5) 3 size bins (galaxies of scale 0.1’’, 0.2’’ and 0.4’’) JPL WL from space meeting
PSF variation with focus/position JPL WL from space meeting
Note ellipticity dependence on smoothing scale (PSF wings are more elliptical) 0.34o0.57o0.8o 0.34o off-axis 0.57o off-axis 0.8o off-axis JPL WL from space meeting
0.34o0.57o0.8o Note that e1=e2=0 PSFs are not necessarily circularly symmetric 0.34o off-axis 0.57o off-axis 0.8o off-axis JPL WL from space meeting
0.34o0.57o0.8o 0.34o off-axis 0.57o off-axis 0.8o off-axis JPL WL from space meeting
0.34o0.57o0.8o 0.34o off-axis 0.57o off-axis 0.8o off-axis JPL WL from space meeting
Analysis KSB+ analysis (measuring stellar ellipticities and polarizabilities at same scale as these quantities are measured for each galaxy) Select faint galaxies (6 < S/N < 250), which tend to carry most of the shear signal in real WL analyses Note: The magnitude values have an arbitrary zeropoint and should not be taken literally. S/N values are more meaningful JPL WL from space meeting
Bias of shear measurements Size: 0.1”(blue), 0.2”(red), 0.4”(green) JPL WL from space meeting
ShearKaiser Squires & Broadhurst Ap.J. 449 460-475 1995 (KSB) Polarization is characterized by a vector (e1, e2) • e1 ~ (Qxx–Qyy)/(Qxx+Qyy) • e2 ~ 2Qxy/(Qxx+Qyy) • The Qij are Gaussian weighted second moments of the intensity distribution • NOTE: In these simulations, all galaxies have the same intrinsic |e| = sqrt(e12 + e22) • The simulated galaxies of different sizes have their ellipticities diluted by the PSF to a varying extent --> concentric circles in e1-e2 space • Noisier (fainter) galaxies make “fuzzier” circles • Anisotropic PSFs make them slightly non-concentric & non-circular JPL WL from space meeting
“Shear recovery” • Apply standard KSB methods (+later modifications by Luppino & Kaiser 1997 and Hoekstra et al. 1998) to recover the intrinsic values of e1 , e2 (see fig) • From these, calculate the mean value of the modulus <|e|> = <sqrt(e12 + e22)> • Define “bias” as the ratio of the output value to the input value of the ellipticity • Define “uncertainty” as the rms scatter around <|e|> JPL WL from space meeting
Bias of the shear measurements (ellipticity modulus after PSF correction, relative to input ellipticity) Green: 0.34o off-axis Blue: 0.57o off-axis Red: 0.8o off-axis JPL WL from space meeting
Uncertainty of the shear measurements Green: 0.34o off-axis Blue: 0.57o off-axis Red: 0.8o off-axis JPL WL from space meeting
Mean value of each shear component (should in principle be zero; circle indicates ~1 sigma uncertainty). JPL WL from space meeting
This is work in progress… Currently probing features/limitations of KSB+ more than SNAP ? Would be useful to compare to another method for shape measurement Simulations with finer sampling of different focus values (checking how smoothly uncertainty & bias vary as function of focus). JPL WL from space meeting