Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Galaxy-Point Spread Function correlations as a probe of weak-lensing systematics with UNIONS data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a semi-analytical covariance matrix for the galaxy--PSF cross-correlations ($\tau$-statistics) that reproduces the parameter uncertainties from jackknife and simulation-based estimates at about one-eighth the…

desk verdict Useful and fast PSF systematics diagnostic, but the central covariance derivation has an index error that must be fixed before the formula is usable. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14666 v1 pith:UZG5MKU6 submitted 2024-12-19 astro-ph.CO

Sacha Guerrini , Martin Kilbinger , Hubert Leterme , Axel Guinot , Jingwei Wang , Fabian Hervas Peters , Hendrik Hildebrandt , Michael J. Hudson
show 1 more author
Alan McConnachie
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.CO
keywords weakgravitationallensingpointspreadfunctionPSFsystematicstau-statisticsrho-statisticssemi-analyticalcovariancecosmicshearUNIONS
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the covariance of the $\tau$-statistics---the cross-correlations between galaxy shapes and PSF model fields that quantify weak-lensing PSF contamination---can be computed semi-analytically rather than from simulations or jackknife resampling. The authors derive the covariance from a Gaussian four-point expansion, using the measured $\rho$- and $\tau$-statistics as inputs, and show on UNIONS data that the resulting parameter constraints on the PSF error amplitudes $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\eta$ and the total systematic level $\xi_{\mathrm{PSF,sys}}$ agree with the two standard approaches. If the method holds, PSF systematics checks become cheap enough to run on many catalogs, patches, or tomographic bins. The paper also introduces a redefinition of the $\tau$-statistics that breaks a degeneracy between the leakage parameter and the size-residual parameter.

What carries the argument

The $\tau$-statistics $\tau_0=\langle e\,e_p\rangle$, $\tau_2=\langle e\,\delta e_p\rangle$, $\tau_5=\langle e\,\delta T_p\rangle$ are linear functions of the $\rho$-statistics through parameters $\Omega=(\alpha,\beta,\eta)$, and the paper's new machinery is an analytic covariance for those $\tau$-values. It reduces the four-point correlation of the estimators to a mixed term (galaxy shape noise times a $\rho$-statistics) and cosmic-variance products of shear and PSF correlation functions, with the sums over galaxy positions replaced by ensemble averages over survey area and number density. The connected four-point term is dropped via Wick's theorem, and the shot-noise diagonal is taken from a tree-code estimator of the observed catalog; the resulting matrix is then used in a least-squares solution or a Gaussian likelihood. The redefinition $\tilde{\tau}_5$ replaces the spin-2 star ellipticity factor in the size residual by a tangential unit vector, turning the size-residual contribution into a scalar correlation that no longer mixes with PSF leakage.

What would settle it

Run the semi-analytical covariance on a suite of simulated galaxy catalogs with strongly non-Gaussian fields and with known injected PSF leakage parameters, and show that the least-squares posteriors cover the injected values; failure would demonstrate bias from the Gaussian truncation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the covariance matrix of the $\tau$-statistics can be assembled from analytic integrals over the measured two-point functions: a mixed shot-noise term involving the galaxy shape noise $\sigma_e^2$ and the relevant $\rho$-statistics, plus cosmic-variance terms built from products of the shear correlation function and the PSF-field correlations, with the connected four-point term set to zero under the Gaussian assumption. Applied to the UNIONS v1.3 shape catalogue with a data-driven multi-CCD PSF model, this semi-analytical covariance yields contours for $(\alpha,\beta,\eta)$ and a systematic level $\xi_{\mathrm{PSF,sys}}$ that agree at the 68% confidence level with jackknife and simulation-based covariances. The computation takes 27 minutes on 48 cores versus 227 minutes for jackknife, and unlike the simulations it retains galaxy--star cross terms. A reformulated $\tilde{\tau}$-statistics, treating the PSF size residual as a scalar field through a tangential unit-vector factor, removes the $\alpha$--$\eta$ degeneracy while reproducing the same systematic level.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the galaxy and PSF shape fields are close enough to Gaussian that a four-point correlation can be split into products of two-point correlations; the paper's Gaussianity test uses simulated galaxies only, not simulated stars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PSF systematic parameters and their error bars can be obtained from a single galaxy-plus-star catalog, with no simulation campaign or patch resampling needed.
  • The semi-analytical covariance includes galaxy--PSF cross terms that the simulation-based covariance omits, so it is a more complete comparison target.
  • Runtime drops from about 227 to 27 minutes for the UNIONS setup, and using the least-squares solver instead of MCMC compounds the gain to a factor of about 8.2.
  • The redefined $\tilde{\tau}$-statistics separate the leakage contribution from the size-residual contribution, giving a cleaner null test of PSF size modelling.
  • Large tomographic and future survey analyses can run repeated PSF diagnostics across redshift bins or catalog cuts without rebuilding covariances each time.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test is to validate the semi-analytical covariance on fields with strongly non-Gaussian small-scale clustering or with injected star-position correlations, since the Gaussian truncation is only tested on simulated galaxy fields in the paper.
  • The $\tilde{\tau}$ redefinition could be paired with the same semi-analytical covariance derivation, an extension the paper leaves to future work that would give an end-to-end fast diagnostic with both degeneracy removal and low runtime.
  • If the runtime advantage holds at future survey sizes, PSF systematics could be tracked as a function of survey depth, observing conditions, or mask geometry in near real time, informing calibration before the final cosmology run.
  • The covariance formalism should transfer to fourth-order PSF-moment systematics with an analogous structure, as the paper itself notes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a semi-analytical estimator for the covariance matrix of the τ-statistics, i.e., cross-correlations of galaxy ellipticities with PSF ellipticity, ellipticity-residual, and size-residual fields, and applies it to the UNIONS v1.3 shear catalogue. The covariance is constructed from measured ρ-, τ-, and shear correlation functions plus a shot-noise term, using a Gaussian-field assumption to reduce four-point correlators via Wick's theorem. The authors compare constraints on the PSF error parameters (α, β, η) obtained with this covariance against jackknife and GLASS-simulation covariances, report broad agreement, and propose a redefinition of τ5 that breaks the α–η degeneracy. The paper claims a factor of about 8 speed-up relative to jackknife and positions the method as a fast PSF diagnostic for current and Stage IV weak-lensing surveys.

Significance. The methodological goal is timely and the application is nontrivial: the paper contains a detailed derivation, a real-data demonstration, a comparison against two independent covariance estimators, and a practical discussion of degeneracies. If the covariance formula is correct, the semi-analytical approach is genuinely useful for fast PSF-systematics checks in current and future surveys, and the proposed τ~-statistics are a reasonable way to separate leakage from size-residual contamination. However, the central claim of 'comparable results' is currently weakened by an apparent index inconsistency in the main formula and by the incomplete Gaussianity validation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sect. 2.5.1, Eqs. (20)–(21)] The published cosmic-variance term in Eq. (21) is inconsistent with its own derivation in Eq. (20). Eq. (20) gives the first Wick term as ξγγ(ϑik)ξbc(ϑjl) along with cos(4(φik−φjl)), while Eq. (21) writes this term, and the second term, with the arguments (ϑil, ϑjk) and cos(4(φil−φjk)). The sentence after Eq. (21) that the result follows from invariance under exchange of the indices k and l is not valid, because k labels a galaxy with weight w^e_k and l labels the PSF-related field c with weight w^c_l; exchanging them changes the weight structure and the field identities. Correspondingly, the ensemble-average treatment in Sect. 2.5.2 (Eq. 27) uses F1(θ23)F2(θ14), which covers only the ξγc ξγb term; the ξγγ ξbc term depends on θ13 and θ24 and is not evaluated there. If the code implements Eq. (21) as written, the covariance is biased at the level of the main new result, and this may explain the elevated reduced chi-square (1.63 vs 0.86) and the visible shift in β. The authors should correct Eq. (21), update the ensemble-average derivation accordingly, re-run the full comparison, and provide the actual code link (the text currently gives only '/gtb').
  2. [App. B] The Gaussianity test used to justify Wick's theorem in Eq. (19) is based on 300 GLASS realizations in which only the galaxy catalog is simulated; the star and PSF catalogs are the observed data, repeated identically in every realization. The test therefore cannot detect non-Gaussianity in the star and PSF fields, even though those fields enter the covariance through the ξbc and ξγc factors. The Gaussian assumption for the PSF-related fields thus remains unvalidated. Please either extend the test to simulated star/PSF fields, or provide a specific physical and statistical justification for treating those sparse, selection-affected fields as Gaussian.
  3. [Sect. 4.1, Table 1] The semi-analytical covariance yields χ²_red = 1.63 for 57 degrees of freedom, compared with 0.86 for jackknife and 1.18 for simulations. This is a statistically poor fit, and the text's statement that the fit is 'similar' is not supported by any quantitative comparison. The discrepancy is a red flag that the published semi-analytical covariance does not fully describe the noise. The authors should either demonstrate that the corrected Eq. (21) removes the excess chi-square, or explicitly qualify the claim of comparable results by reporting this goodness-of-fit difference and its consequences for parameter inference.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sect. 4.1] The text refers to 'Table 3' when summarizing parameter constraints; the table summarizing these results is Table 1.
  2. [Sect. 6] The repository link is given as '/gtb' without a resolvable URL; a complete link to the public repository must be provided for reproducibility.
  3. [Sect. 2.5.2] The sentence 'The first two terms depend on the scalars θ23 and θ14' is unclear, given that the ξγγ ξbc term depends on θ13 and θ24; please clarify the indexing used in the ensemble-average derivation.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The left panel is described as 'analytical expressions from Eq. (18)', but Eq. (18) is the general covariance definition; the actual semi-analytical expression is Eq. (21).
  5. [Sect. 2.4] The section heading contains a typo: 'τ-statisics' should be 'τ-statistics'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; only a self-definitional statistic redefinition and minor self-citations; the central semi-analytical covariance result is externally benchmarked.

  1. self definitional [Section 5.2, Eqs. (36)-(37)]
    "The field f is implicitly defined, with respect to the pairs, such that, when computing the ρ- and τ-correlations, only the tangential direction contributes at star positions and for a given polar angle φ. f thus reverts to the unit vector in the tangential direction, f = êt. Thus the correlation function between a spin-2 field a and the product of f with a scalar field s is obtained as follows: ξa[ f s] ± (ϑ) = ⟨at ft s⟩(ϑ) ± ⟨a× f×s⟩(ϑ) = ⟨at s⟩(ϑ)."

    The paper presents the tilde-τ redefinition as a way to break the degeneracy between α and η, but the degeneracy-breaking property is placed into the construction by hand: f is chosen so that only the tangential component contributes, which removes the e* leakage information from the size-residual term. Eq. (37) is then a restatement of that definition rather than an independent derived result. The step is transparently labeled a redefinition and does not affect the main semi-analytical covariance comparison, so the circular impact is minor.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation—the semi-analytical covariance of the τ-statistics (Sect. 2.5, Eqs. 18-21)—is not circular. It is a Wick expansion of the four-point correlator under a stated Gaussianity assumption, with the connected term set to zero; the inputs are the ρ-, τ-, and ξγγ correlation functions, plugged in from the data. Section 2.5.3 states: 'we have no theoretical predictions for the ρ- and τ-statistics and use the statistics estimated on the data to build the covariance matrix.' Plug-in covariance estimation is standard and does not reduce the subsequent fit of (α, β, η) to a tautology: the validation against jackknife resampling and 300 GLASS simulations (Sect. 4) is external to the semi-analytical construction. The final systematic level ξ_PSF,sys (Eq. 15) is by definition a function of the fitted parameters and the ρ-statistics; the paper compares it across three independent covariance estimates, so the agreement is not statistically forced. The one definitional item is the Section 5.2 redefinition of the τ-statistics: f is defined so that only the tangential component contributes, making the claimed degeneracy-breaking true by construction (Eq. 37). This is transparent and does not bear on the main covariance result. Minor self-citations (Schneider et al. 2002, coauthored by Kilbinger; Kilbinger et al. 2021) are not load-bearing: the covariance formalism is reproduced in the paper and even corrected ('Note that this is incorrectly stated in Schneider et al. (2002)'). Correctness caveats that are not circularity include: the Gaussianity test (App. B) uses galaxy-only GLASS simulations, so the Gaussianity of the star/PSF fields entering the covariance is not directly tested; the apparent index inconsistency between Eqs. (20) and (21) is an internal-error concern; and the code link is missing, hampering reproduction. These lower confidence but do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the Gaussian-field assumption, unity weights, a simplified survey geometry, parity conservation, the linear scale-independent PSF error model, and the treatment of PSF fields as deterministic. These are standard in the literature but are not derived within the paper. The three parameters alpha, beta, eta are fitted to the data; they are the target of inference, not hidden tuning parameters. The redefined field f is a mathematical device introduced to break the alpha-eta degeneracy and has no external falsifiable handle.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (PSF leakage amplitude) = 0.014 +/- 0.008 (least-squares, semi-analytical)
    Amplitude of the e_p term in Eq. (8), fitted to UNIONS tau-statistics; reported in Table 1.
  • beta (PSF ellipticity residual amplitude) = 0.96 to 1.1 across methods
    Amplitude of the delta_e_p term in Eq. (8), fitted to UNIONS tau-statistics; reported in Table 1.
  • eta (size residual amplitude) = -0.4 to -1.4 across methods
    Amplitude of the delta_T_p term in Eq. (8), fitted to UNIONS tau-statistics; reported in Table 1.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The underlying spin-2 fields are Gaussian, so the connected four-point term vanishes via Wick's theorem.
    Section 2.5.1, Eq. (19) uses Wick's theorem and sets the connected term to zero; tested in Appendix B with GLASS simulations.
  • domain assumption All weights are set to unity in the covariance ensemble-average calculation.
    Section 2.5.2 states 'As in Schneider et al. (2002) we set all weights to unity' to replace discrete sums by ensemble averages; actual catalog weights may vary.
  • domain assumption The survey geometry is approximated by a solid angle A with uniform object number density.
    Section 2.5.2 replaces pair sums by ensemble averages over solid angle A with constant number density n_a; ignores masks and inhomogeneity of the UNIONS footprint.
  • domain assumption Parity conservation of the involved fields, so xi_x = 0 and xi_* = 0.
    Section 2.1 sets the parity-violating correlators to zero; used in Eqs. (6) and in the covariance derivation.
  • domain assumption The PSF error model is linear and the parameters alpha, beta, eta are scale-independent.
    Section 2.4, Eq. (8), with parameters independent of angular scale; standard in the literature (Paulin-Henriksson et al. 2008; Gatti et al. 2021).
  • domain assumption PSF fields are deterministic with no stochastic component (b_obs = b).
    Section 2.2, Eq. (9); the shot noise of galaxy-PSF correlations is instead added separately from TreeCorr (Section 2.5.3).
  • domain assumption Correlation functions vary slowly over the angular bin width.
    Section 2.5.2 makes this assumption to solve the radial integrals analytically.
  • domain assumption The tau-statistics follow a Gaussian likelihood.
    Section 2.4 assumes a Gaussian likelihood for MCMC and least-squares; tested in Appendix B.
invented entities (1)
  • Field f defined as the unit tangential vector e_t
    purpose: Redefine the size-residual term delta_T_p as a scalar field to break the alpha-eta degeneracy in the PSF error model (Section 5.2).
    The field f is introduced in Section 5.2 such that f = e_t in pair correlations; it is a mathematical device, not a physical field, and the paper notes the error model 'loses physical consistency'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Galaxy-Point Spread Function correlations as a probe of weak-lensing systematics with UNIONS data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UZG5MKU6

@misc{pith2026241214666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Galaxy-Point Spread Function correlations as a probe of weak-lensing systematics with UNIONS data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UZG5MKU6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14666}
}
abstract

Weak gravitational lensing requires precise measurements of galaxy shapes and therefore an accurate knowledge of the PSF model. The latter can be a source of systematics that affect the shear two-point correlation function. A key stake of weak lensing analysis is to forecast the systematics due to the PSF. Correlation functions of galaxies and the PSF, the so-called $\rho$- and $\tau$-statistics, are used to evaluate the level of systematics coming from the PSF model and PSF corrections, and contributing to the two-point correlation function used to perform cosmological inference. Our goal is to introduce a fast and simple method to estimate this level of systematics and assess its agreement with state-of-the-art approaches. We introduce a new way to estimate the covariance matrix of the $\tau$-statistics using analytical expressions. The covariance allows us to estimate parameters directly related to the level of systematics associated with the PSF and provides us with a tool to validate the PSF model used in a weak-lensing analysis. We apply those methods to data from the Ultraviolet Near-Infrared Optical Northern Survey (UNIONS). We show that the semi-analytical covariance yields comparable results than using covariances obtained from simulations or jackknife resampling. It requires less computation time and is therefore well suited for rapid comparison of the systematic level obtained from different catalogs. We also show how one can break degeneracies between parameters with a redefinition of the $\tau$-statistics. The methods developed in this work will be useful tools in the analysis of current weak-lensing data but also of Stage IV surveys such as Euclid, LSST or Roman. They provide fast and accurate diagnostics on PSF systematics that are crucial to understand in the context of cosmic shear studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14666 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Correlation matrices of the τ-statistics for different methods. The panels from left to right correspond to the analytical expressions from Eq. (18), jackknife resampling, and simulations, respectively [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagonal component of the three τ-statistics covariances for the different methods used to estimate the covariance. Upper panel: Diagonal of the τ0-τ0 covariance. Middle panel: Diagonal of the τ2-τ2 covariance. Lower panel: Diagonal of the τ5-τ5 covariance. Black and grey lines correspond to individual contribution of each term in the covariance in Eq. (18). Small scales are shot noise-dominated. We see a good agree… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Constraints obtained on parameters Ω = (α, β, η) T of the PSF error model. Left panel: Constraints are obtained using the least-square method. Right panel: Constraints are obtained using MCMC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observed data with error bars and best-fit of the τ-statistics at the 68% confidence level for the three different methods used to estimate the covariance matrix of the τ-statistics. The τ-statistics are estimated using parameters (α, β, η) sampled with least-squares. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Level of systematic error for the different method to estimate the covariance matrices. We show the confidence interval for the level of systematic at the 68% confidence level. Top Panel: Using least-squares to estimate the parameters. Bottom panel: Using MCMC to estim…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dependency of the level of systematics on the parameters α, β and η of the PSF error model. Upper panel: Dependency on η with α and β fixed. It follows the dotted line on the left panel. Middle upper panel: Dependency on α with β and η fixed. It follows the dashdotted …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Constraints obtained on α, β and η using least-squares (black) and MCMC (brown). The covariance used to perform the fit is obtained from GLASS simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Level of systematics obtained using a covariance matrix com￾puted from simulations for parameter estimation using least-squares (black) and MCMC (brown). UNIONS data. This degeneracy is expected as the size resid￾ual is multiplied by the ellipticity of stars e ∗ to yie…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Best-fit model of the τ- and ˜τ-statistics obtained using a least-squares sampling method. We show the 68% confidence region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Level of systematics obtained using least-squares sampling method using standard τ-statistics and the redefined ˜τ-statistics (see Eq. (39)). 8 between semi-analytical and jackknife covariance. We note that the semi-analytical covariance contains galaxy-PSF cross￾corr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Galaxies OBserved as Low-luminosity Identified Nebulae (GOBLIN): a catalog of 43,000 high-probability dwarf galaxy candidates in the UNIONS survey

    astro-ph.GA 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A machine-learning pipeline applied to the UNIONS survey identifies 42,965 high-probability dwarf galaxy candidates, released as the GOBLIN catalog.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archiveprefix author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution eprint journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in " " * FUNCTION format....

  3. [3]

    2019, The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope : 100 Hubbles for the 2020s

    Akeson, R., Armus, L., Bachelet, E., et al. 2019, The Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope : 100 Hubbles for the 2020s

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    C., Miyatake, H., et al

    Amon, A., Robertson, N. C., Miyatake, H., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 518, 477

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 645, A104

    Asgari, M., Lin, C.-A., Joachimi, B., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 645, A104

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    & Schneider, P

    Bartelmann, M. & Schneider, P. 2001, Phys.\ Rep., 340, 297

    work page 2001

  7. [7]

    2011, 442, 435

    Bertin, E. 2011, 442, 435

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Cannon, P., Ward, D., & Schmon, S. M. 2022, Investigating the Impact of Model Misspecification in Neural Simulation-based Inference

    work page 2022

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    2024, Euclid

    Collaboration, E., Mellier, Y., Abdurro'uf, et al. 2024, Euclid. I . Overview of the Euclid Mission

    2024

  2. [10]

    2023, Physical Review D, 108, 123519

    Dalal, R., Li, X., Nicola, A., et al. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 123519

    2023

  3. [11]

    2022, Physical Review D, 105, 023514

    DES Collaboration , Amon, A., Gruen, D., et al. 2022, Physical Review D, 105, 023514

    2022

  4. [12]

    2022, , 664, A141

    Farrens , S., Guinot , A., Kilbinger , M., et al. 2022, , 664, A141

    2022

  5. [13]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey , D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 125, 306

    2013

  6. [14]

    F., & Gruen , D

    Friedrich , O., Seitz , S., Eifler , T. F., & Gruen , D. 2016, , 456, 2662

    2016

  7. [15]

    Gatti, M., Jeffrey, N., Whiteway, L., et al. 2023, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Simulation-Based Cosmological Inference with Wavelet Harmonics, Scattering Transforms, and Moments of Weak Lensing Mass Maps I : Validation on Simulations

    2023

  8. [16]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 4312

    Gatti, M., Sheldon, E., Amon, A., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 504, 4312

    2021

  9. [17]

    2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 645, A105

    Giblin, B., Heymans, C., Asgari, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 645, A105

    2021

  10. [18]

    2021, , 645, A105

    Giblin , B., Heymans , C., Asgari , M., et al. 2021, , 645, A105

    2021

  11. [19]

    2022, , 666, A162

    Guinot , A., Kilbinger , M., Farrens , S., et al. 2022, , 666, A162

    2022

  12. [20]

    Gwyn, S. et al. 2025, in preparation

    2025

  13. [21]

    2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 72, 16

    Hamana, T., Shirasaki, M., Miyazaki, S., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 72, 16

    2020

  14. [22]

    2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 146

    Heymans, C., van Waerbeke , L., Miller, L., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 427, 146

    2012

  15. [23]

    2006, , 371, 750

    Heymans , C., White , M., Heavens , A., Vale , C., & van Waerbeke , L. 2006, , 371, 750

    2006

  16. [24]

    & Mandelbaum , R

    Huff , E. & Mandelbaum , R. 2017, arXiv, 1702.02600

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    A., McConnachie , A., Cuillandre , J.-C., et al

    Ibata , R. A., McConnachie , A., Cuillandre , J.-C., et al. 2017, , 848, 128

    2017

  18. [26]

    M., Tyson, J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111

    2019

  19. [27]

    2004, , 352, 338

    Jarvis, M., Bernstein, G., & Jain, B. 2004, , 352, 338

    2004

  20. [28]

    2016, , 460, 2245

    Jarvis , M., Sheldon , E., Zuntz , J., et al. 2016, , 460, 2245

    2016

  21. [29]

    2024, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Likelihood-Free, Simulation-Based \ w\ CDM Inference with Neural Compression of Weak-Lensing Map Statistics

    Jeffrey, N., Whiteway, L., Gatti, M., et al. 2024, Dark Energy Survey Year 3 Results: Likelihood-Free, Simulation-Based \ w\ CDM Inference with Neural Compression of Weak-Lensing Map Statistics

    2024

  22. [30]

    1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 449, 460

    Kaiser, N., Squires, G., & Broadhurst, T. 1995, The Astrophysical Journal, 449, 460

    1995

  23. [31]

    2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 086901

    Kilbinger , M. 2015, Reports on Progress in Physics, 78, 086901

    2015

  24. [32]

    Kilbinger , M., Ishida , E. E. O., & Cisewski-Kehe , J. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.03148

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    & Schneider, P

    Kilbinger, M. & Schneider, P. 2004, , 413, 465

    2004

  26. [34]

    2011, arXiv:1110.3193 [ [arXiv] 1110.3193 ]

    Laureijs , R., Amiaux , J., Arduini , S., et al. 2011, arXiv:1110.3193 [ [arXiv] 1110.3193 ]

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.10740

    Li , Q., Kilbinger , M., Luo , W., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.10740

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    2023 a , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 670, A100

    Li, S.-S., Kuijken, K., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2023 a , Astronomy and Astrophysics, 670, A100

    2023

  29. [37]

    2023 b , Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 Results : Cosmology from Cosmic Shear Two-point Correlation Functions

    Li, X., Zhang, T., Sugiyama, S., et al. 2023 b , Hyper Suprime-Cam Year 3 Results : Cosmology from Cosmic Shear Two-point Correlation Functions

    2023

  30. [38]

    2021, , 646, A27

    Liaudat , T., Bonnin , J., Starck , J.-L., et al. 2021, , 646, A27

    2021

  31. [39]

    2018, , 56, 393

    Mandelbaum , R. 2018, , 56, 393

    2018

  32. [40]

    2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 393

    Mandelbaum, R. 2018, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 56, 393

    2018

  33. [41]

    Paulin-Henriksson , S., Amara , A., Voigt , L., Refregier , A., & Bridle , S. L. 2008, , 484, 67

    2008

  34. [42]

    2010, , 404, 350

    Rowe , B. 2010, , 404, 350

    2010

  35. [43]

    2002, , 396, 1

    Schneider, P., Van Waerbeke, L., Kilbinger, M., & Mellier, Y. 2002, , 396, 1

    2002

  36. [44]

    2002, , 389, 729

    Schneider , P., Van Waerbeke, L., & Mellier , Y. 2002, , 389, 729

    2002

  37. [45]

    & Heavens, A

    Sellentin, E. & Heavens, A. F. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 2355

    2018

  38. [46]

    Sheldon , E. S. & Huff , E. M. 2017, , 841, 24

    2017

  39. [47]

    2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 10.21105/astro.2302.01942

    Tessore, N., Loureiro, A., Joachimi, B., von Wietersheim-Kramsta , M., & Jeffrey, N. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 10.21105/astro.2302.01942

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  41. [49]

    2024, KiDS-SBI : Simulation-Based Inference Analysis of KiDS-1000 Cosmic Shear

    von Wietersheim-Kramsta , M., Lin, K., Tessore, N., et al. 2024, KiDS-SBI : Simulation-Based Inference Analysis of KiDS-1000 Cosmic Shear

    2024

  42. [50]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 2441

    Zhang, T., Li, X., Dalal, R., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 2441

    2023

  43. [51]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.03434

    Zhang , Z., Kilbinger , M., Hervas Peters , F., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.03434

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.