Issue |
A&A
Volume 549, January 2013
|
|
---|---|---|
Article Number | A1 | |
Number of page(s) | 20 | |
Section | Astronomical instrumentation | |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201219739 | |
Published online | 06 December 2012 |
Interpolating point spread function anisotropy
Laboratoire d’astrophysique, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Observatoire de Sauverny , 1290 Versoix, Switzerland
e-mail: marc.gentile@epfl.ch
Received:
3
June
2012
Accepted:
19
September
2012
Planned wide-field weak lensing surveys are expected to reduce the statistical errors on the shear field to unprecedented levels. In contrast, systematic errors like those induced by the convolution with the point spread function (PSF) will not benefit from that scaling effect and will require very accurate modeling and correction. While numerous methods have been devised to carry out the PSF correction itself, modeling of the PSF shape and its spatial variations across the instrument field of view has, so far, attracted much less attention. This step is nevertheless crucial because the PSF is only known at star positions while the correction has to be performed at any position on the sky. A reliable interpolation scheme is therefore mandatory and a popular approach has been to use low-order bivariate polynomials. In the present paper, we evaluate four other classical spatial interpolation methods based on splines (B-splines), inverse distance weighting (IDW), radial basis functions (RBF) and ordinary Kriging (OK). These methods are tested on the Star-challenge part of the GRavitational lEnsing Accuracy Testing 2010 (GREAT10) simulated data and are compared with the classical polynomial fitting (Polyfit). In all our methods we model the PSF using a single Moffat profile and we interpolate the fitted parameters at a set of required positions. This allowed us to win the Star-challenge of GREAT10, with the B-splines method. However, we also test all our interpolation methods independently of the way the PSF is modeled, by interpolating the GREAT10 star fields themselves (i.e., the PSF parameters are known exactly at star positions). We find in that case RBF to be the clear winner, closely followed by the other local methods, IDW and OK. The global methods, Polyfit and B-splines, are largely behind, especially in fields with (ground-based) turbulent PSFs. In fields with non-turbulent PSFs, all interpolators reach a variance on PSF systematics σ2sys better than the 1 × 10-7 upper bound expected by future space-based surveys, with the local interpolators performing better than the global ones.
Key words: gravitational lensing: weak / methods: data analysis
© ESO, 2012
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.