pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.24638 · v1 · pith:M6QASWBRnew · submitted 2026-06-23 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.IM

Weak Lensing with the SKAO: Radio Shear Measurement

Priyamvad Tripathi , Marzia Rivi , Simon Prunet , Ian Harrison , Andr\'e Ferrari This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 23:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.IM
keywords weak lensingradio galaxiesSKAcosmic shearshape measurementshear biassimulation pipeline
0
0 comments X

The pith

Radio shear methods achieve multiplicative bias of a few 10^{-2} on SKA-Mid simulations

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

The paper creates simulated radio observations matching the SKA-Mid telescope to test three methods for measuring galaxy shapes needed for cosmic shear. It shows that RadioLensfit and DeepShape provide the best accuracy among the tested approaches, while SuperCALS is less accurate. Shear recovery with the top methods yields biases at levels of a few percent for multiplicative and 0.0001 for additive. This work is needed because radio surveys offer a new window on weak lensing that is independent of optical data but requires custom analysis tools due to different noise and systematics. The results indicate that radio weak lensing is feasible with current techniques but source separation remains a major hurdle.

Core claim

Using a pipeline that generates realistic SKA-Mid AA4 observations of isolated radio galaxies, the authors demonstrate that RadioLensfit and DeepShape deliver the most accurate shape estimates, enabling shear recovery with multiplicative biases of order a few 10^{-2} and additive biases of order 10^{-4}.

What carries the argument

The SKA-Mid simulation pipeline applied to three radio shape measurement techniques: SuperCALS, RadioLensfit, and DeepShape.

If this is right

  • Shape measurement accuracy improves with RadioLensfit and DeepShape over SuperCALS.
  • Shear biases remain at the 10^{-2} level, suitable for initial radio lensing studies.
  • Computational intensity differs significantly between methods.
  • Source separation must be addressed for crowded fields in real surveys.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Combining radio and optical shear measurements could reduce systematic errors in cosmology.
  • Extending the pipeline to include blended sources would test the methods under more realistic conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated observations of isolated radio galaxies using the SKA-Mid AA4 configuration capture the dominant instrumental and astrophysical systematics that will affect real weak-lensing measurements.

What would settle it

Measuring the actual shear bias on real SKA data using the same methods and comparing it to the simulation results would confirm or refute the reported performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.24638 by Andr\'e Ferrari, Ian Harrison, Marzia Rivi, Priyamvad Tripathi, Simon Prunet.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Visibility coverage for a pointing at declination of 𝛿 = −30◦ . 𝑢 and 𝑣 are plotted in 1000 wavelength units k𝜆. Reproduced from Tripathi et al. (2025, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Residuals of the first ellipticity component (𝜖1) for different shape measurement methods as a function of the input value. The 2D contours are obtained via kernel density estimation, with colored dashed lines indicating the best-fit linear relationship. The right panel shows the corresponding marginal 1D distribution of the residuals. for weak lensing, as previously demonstrated (Patel et al., 2014; Conno… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Estimated multiplicative shear bias (𝑀ˆ 1, 𝑀ˆ 2) for the two shear components as a function of galaxy selection cuts, obtained from the slope of the best fit linear relation between the measurement residuals and the true shear. The dotted black line indicates the SKA Mid requirement. Left: dependence on maximum ellipticity. Right: dependence on minimum flux. Reproduced from Tripathi et al. (2025, [PITH_FU… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Multiplicative shear bias for both components as a function of minimum SNR, compared with SKA-Mid requirements (solid black line) and CFHTLenS calibration correction (dash-dotted line) (Heymans et al., 2012). Right: Additive shear bias for both components as a function of minimum SNR. Reproduced from Rivi et al. (2016, Figs. 7 and 8). Shear in each field was estimated as a weighted average of galaxy … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cosmic shear measurements have traditionally been dominated by optical surveys, which offer higher resolution, better sensitivity, higher galaxy number density, and wider area coverage than their radio counterparts. With the advent of upcoming radio surveys, particularly those planned with the SKA-Mid, we would reach the high sensitivity and resolution required for weak lensing studies, allowing radio observations to begin competing with optical surveys in this domain. However, radio observations are affected by fundamentally different instrumental and astrophysical systematics, meaning that shape and shear measurement techniques developed for optical surveys cannot be straightforwardly applied. Fully realizing the weak lensing potential of these next generation radio surveys therefore requires the development and validation of methods tailored specifically for radio datasets. In this chapter, we present a simulation pipeline to generate realistic observations of isolated radio galaxies based on the SKA-Mid AA4 array configuration. We apply three recent radio shape measurement techniques: SuperCALS, RadioLensfit, and DeepShape, to assess their performance on these simulations. Our results show that RadioLensfit and DeepShape yield the most accurate shape estimates, although RadioLensfit is significantly more computationally intensive. We also perform shear recovery on simulated data using RadioLensfit and DeepShape, finding multiplicative and additive shear biases of order a few $10^{-2}$ and $10^{-4}$, respectively. Finally, we highlight the challenge of source separation, which will play a critical role in the success of future radio weak lensing analyses.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes a simulation pipeline to generate realistic observations of isolated radio galaxies based on the SKA-Mid AA4 array configuration. It applies three radio shape measurement techniques (SuperCALS, RadioLensfit, and DeepShape) to assess performance, finding that RadioLensfit and DeepShape yield the most accurate shape estimates (with RadioLensfit being significantly more computationally intensive). Shear recovery tests on the simulated data using RadioLensfit and DeepShape produce multiplicative biases of order a few 10^{-2} and additive biases of order 10^{-4}. The work also highlights source separation as a critical challenge for future radio weak lensing analyses.

Significance. If the reported bias levels can be shown to hold under more complete simulations that include blending, this work supplies initial performance benchmarks for radio-specific shape measurement methods tailored to SKA data. Such benchmarks could help establish whether radio weak lensing can serve as a complementary probe to optical cosmic shear surveys, provided the methods scale to realistic source densities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The reported multiplicative (~few × 10^{-2}) and additive (~10^{-4}) shear biases, as well as the ranking of RadioLensfit and DeepShape as most accurate, are obtained exclusively from simulations of isolated galaxies. The abstract itself states that source separation 'will play a critical role' in real analyses, yet the pipeline and shear-recovery tests contain no blended or overlapping sources. This is load-bearing because confusion noise or residual separation errors could shift the bias levels by amounts comparable to the claimed values, undermining applicability to Stage-IV requirements.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: Numerical bias values are stated without accompanying information on how the input shear was injected, on simulation validation against instrumental effects, or on the error budget. This prevents assessment of whether the central performance claims are robustly supported by the forward-modeling setup.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and agree that the abstract requires revision to better reflect the scope and limitations of the presented simulations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The reported multiplicative (~few × 10^{-2}) and additive (~10^{-4}) shear biases, as well as the ranking of RadioLensfit and DeepShape as most accurate, are obtained exclusively from simulations of isolated galaxies. The abstract itself states that source separation 'will play a critical role' in real analyses, yet the pipeline and shear-recovery tests contain no blended or overlapping sources. This is load-bearing because confusion noise or residual separation errors could shift the bias levels by amounts comparable to the claimed values, undermining applicability to Stage-IV requirements.

    Authors: We agree that the simulations and shear-recovery tests are performed exclusively on isolated galaxies, as described in the manuscript. The abstract already flags source separation as a critical challenge for future analyses, and the reported bias values are intended as initial performance benchmarks for the shape-measurement methods under these controlled conditions. We acknowledge that blending and confusion noise represent important additional systematics that could affect the bias levels. We will revise the abstract to explicitly state that the quoted biases apply to isolated sources and to emphasize that the impact of source separation remains to be quantified in more complete simulations. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: Numerical bias values are stated without accompanying information on how the input shear was injected, on simulation validation against instrumental effects, or on the error budget. This prevents assessment of whether the central performance claims are robustly supported by the forward-modeling setup.

    Authors: Details of the shear-injection procedure, the forward-modeling approach used to generate the simulated visibilities, and the validation steps against instrumental effects are provided in the methods and results sections of the full manuscript. However, we accept that the abstract presents the bias numbers without sufficient context. We will revise the abstract to include a concise statement on the shear-injection method and to reference the simulation validation and error considerations described in the main text. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: bias measurements are direct empirical outputs from forward simulations

full rationale

The paper constructs a simulation pipeline for isolated radio galaxies under the SKA-Mid AA4 configuration, applies three external shape-measurement techniques, and reports multiplicative/additive shear biases measured against the known input shear. No equation or result is obtained by fitting a parameter to a subset of the same data and relabeling it a prediction; no self-citation chain supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz; and the reported numbers are not equivalent to the simulation inputs by construction. The central claims therefore remain independent empirical measurements on controlled forward models.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; the central claim rests on the unverified assumption that the SKA-Mid AA4 simulations are sufficiently realistic, which is a standard domain assumption in radio astronomy but not demonstrated here.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Simulations of isolated radio galaxies with the SKA-Mid AA4 array configuration reproduce the dominant systematics relevant to weak lensing shape measurement.
    Invoked when the pipeline is used to assess method performance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5807 in / 1217 out tokens · 18215 ms · 2026-06-25T23:37:51.540751+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3062. M. Atemkeng et al.MNRAS, 499(1):292–303, Nov

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3062

  2. [2]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2843. D. J. Bacon, A. R. Refregier, and R. S. Ellis.MNRAS, 318(2):625–640, Oct

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2843

  3. [3]

    1365-2966.2003.07017.x

    doi: 10.1046/j. 1365-8711.2000.03851.x. R. A. Battye et al.MNRAS, 495(2):1706–1723, Apr

    work page doi:10.1046/j 2000

  4. [4]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa709. G. M. Bernstein and R. Armstrong.MNRAS, 438(2):1880–1893, Feb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa709

  5. [5]

    S., Genel, S., et al

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/ stt2326. Bertin, E. and Arnouts, S.A&AS., 117(2):393–404,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/

  6. [6]

    doi: 10.1051/aas:1996164. A. Bonaldi et al.MNRAS, 482(1):2–19, Sept

    work page doi:10.1051/aas:1996164

  7. [7]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2603. R. Braun et al. Anticipated performance of the square kilometre array – phase 1 (ska1),

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2603

  8. [8]

    CASA Team et al.PASP, 134(1041):114501, Nov

    doi: 10.22323/1.215.0023. CASA Team et al.PASP, 134(1041):114501, Nov

    work page doi:10.22323/1.215.0023

  9. [9]

    CASA, the Common Astronomy Software Applications for Radio Astronomy

    doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642. T.Chang,A.Refregier,andD.J.Helfand.ApJ,617(2):794–810,Dec.2004. doi: 10.1086/425491. L. Connor, K. L. Bouman, V. Ravi, and G. Hallinan.MNRAS, 514(2):2614–2626, Aug

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642 2004

  10. [10]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1329. T. J. Cornwell.ISTSP, 2(5):793–801, Oct

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1329

  11. [11]

    ISSN1365-2966

    C.DemetroullasandM.L.Brown.MNRAS,456(3):3100–3118,Dec.2015. ISSN1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2876. C. Demetroullas and M. L. Brown.MNRAS, 473(1):937–952, Sept

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2876 2015

  12. [12]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2366

    ISSN 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2366. I. Fenech Conti et al.MNRAS, 467(2):1627–1651, May

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2366

  13. [13]

    13 Radio Shear Measurement Tripathi et al

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx200. 13 Radio Shear Measurement Tripathi et al. I. Harrison et al.MNRAS, 495(2):1737–1759, Apr

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx200

  14. [14]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa696. C. Heymans et al.MNRAS, 427(1):146–166, Nov

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa696

  15. [15]

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21952.x. J. A. Högbom.A&As, 15:417, June

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21952.x 2012

  16. [16]

    T.Kacprzaketal.MNRAS,427(4):2711–2722,Dec.2012.doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21622.x. N. Kaiser, G. Wilson, and G. A. Luppino. Large-scale cosmic shear measurements,

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21622.x 2012

  17. [17]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz977. R. Massey et al.MNRAS, 429(1):661–678, Feb

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz977

  18. [18]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts371. P. Melchior et al. scarlet: Source separation in multi-band images by Constrained Matrix Factor- ization. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1803.003, Mar

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts371

  19. [19]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2814. J. E. Noordam. InGround-based Telescopes, volume 5489 ofSPIE, pages 817–825, Oct

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2814

  20. [20]

    doi: 10.1117/12.544262. P. Patel et al.MNRAS, 401(4):2572–2586, Feb

    work page doi:10.1117/12.544262

  21. [21]

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15836.x. P. Patel et al.MNRAS, 444(3):2893–2909, Nov

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15836.x 2009

  22. [22]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu1588. P. Patel et al. InAdvancing Astrophysics with the SKA,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1588

  23. [23]

    A.Refregieretal.MNRAS,425(3):1951–1957,Aug.2012

    doi: 10.22323/1.215.0030. A.Refregieretal.MNRAS,425(3):1951–1957,Aug.2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21483. x. D.M.ReimanandB.E.Göhre.MNRAS,485(2):2617–2627,May2019.doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz575. M. Rivi and L. Miller.MNRAS, 476(2):2053–2062,

    work page doi:10.22323/1.215.0030 1951

  24. [24]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty371. M. Rivi and L. Miller. RadioLensfit: Radio weak lensing shear measurement in the visibility domain. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2208.019, Aug

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty371

  25. [25]

    doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2022.100574. M. Rivi, L. Miller, S. Makhathini, and F. B. Abdalla.MNRAS, 463(2):1881–1890, Dec

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2022.100574 2022

  26. [26]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2041. M. Rivi et al.MNRAS, 482(1):1096–1109,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2041

  27. [27]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2700. B. T. Rowe et al.A&C, 10:121–150,

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2700

  28. [28]

    doi: 10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002. J. L. Sérsic.Boletin de la Asociacion Argentina de Astronomia La Plata Argentina, 6:41–43, Feb

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2015.02.002 2015

  29. [29]

    doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa704b. R. Sortino et al.Experimental Astronomy, 56(1):293–331, May

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa704b

  30. [30]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833775. P. Tripathi, S. Wang, S. Prunet, and A. Ferrari.A&A, 696:A216, Apr

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833775

  31. [31]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0002500. D. M. Wittman et al.Nature, 405(6783):143–148, May

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0002500

  32. [32]

    doi: 10.1038/35012001. K. Zhang et al.ITPAM, 44:6360–6376,

    work page doi:10.1038/35012001

  33. [33]

    doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202345903. J. Zuntz et al.MNRAS, 434(2):1604–1618, July

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202345903

  34. [34]

    doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1125. 14

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1125