Weak Lensing Peak Finding: Estimators, Filters, and Biases
arXiv:1009.0757 · doi:10.1088/0004-637X/735/2/119
Abstract
Large catalogs of shear-selected peaks have recently become a reality. In order to properly interpret the abundance and properties of these peaks, it is necessary to take into account the effects of the clustering of source galaxies, among themselves and with the lens. In addition, the preferred selection of lensed galaxies in a flux- and size-limited sample leads to fluctuations in the apparent source density which correlate with the lensing field (lensing bias). In this paper, we investigate these issues for two different choices of shear estimators which are commonly in use today: globally-normalized and locally-normalized estimators. While in principle equivalent, in practice these estimators respond differently to systematic effects such as lensing bias and cluster member dilution. Furthermore, we find that which estimator is statistically superior depends on the specific shape of the filter employed for peak finding; suboptimal choices of the estimator+filter combination can result in a suppression of the number of high peaks by orders of magnitude. Lensing bias generally acts to increase the signal-to-noise νof shear peaks; for high peaks the boost can be as large as Δν~ 1-2. Due to the steepness of the peak abundance function, these boosts can result in a significant increase in the abundance of shear peaks. A companion paper (Rozo et al., 2010) investigates these same issues within the context of stacked weak lensing mass estimates.
11 pages, 8 figures; comments welcome
References in corpus (7)
- A Subaru Weak Lensing Survey I: Cluster Candidates and Spectroscopic Verification
- Anisotropic Magnification Distortion of the 3D Galaxy Correlation: I. Real Space
- Weak lensing survey of galaxy clusters in the CFHTLS Deep
- Lensing Bias in Cosmic Shear
- Size Bias in Galaxy Surveys
- Dark energy constraints from lensing-detected galaxy clusters
- Stacked Weak Lensing Mass Calibration: Estimators, Systematics, and Impact on Cosmological Parameter Constraints
Cited by in corpus (20)
- Dark energy two decades after: Observables, probes, consistency tests
- On the Accuracy of Weak Lensing Cluster Mass Reconstructions
- A Detection of Weak Lensing Magnification using Galaxy Sizes and Magnitudes
- Scatter and bias in weak lensing selected clusters
- Probing cosmology with weak lensing selected clusters I: Halo approach and all-sky simulations
- The Impact of Magnification and Size Bias on Weak Lensing Power Spectrum and Peak Statistics
- Observed galaxy number counts on the lightcone up to second order: III. Magnification Bias
- Stacked Weak Lensing Mass Calibration: Estimators, Systematics, and Impact on Cosmological Parameter Constraints
- Weak lensing clusters from HSC survey first-year data: Mitigating the dilution effect of foreground and cluster member galaxies
- Interpolating Masked Weak Lensing Signal with Karhunen-Loeve Analysis
- Testing hydrostatic equilibrium in galaxy cluster MS 2137
- Probing cosmology with weak lensing selected clusters II: Dark energy and f(R) gravity models
- Large-scale imprint of relativistic effects in the cosmic magnification
- Which is a better cosmological probe: Number counts or cosmic magnification?
- Imprint of f(R) gravity in the cosmic magnification
- Probabilistic Cosmological Mass Mapping from Weak Lensing Shear
- Adaptive wavelet distillation from neural networks through interpretations
- Understanding the relativistic overdensity of galaxy surveys
- Peaks in weak lensing mass maps for cluster astrophysics and cosmology
- Investigating the imprint of quintessence in cosmic magnification