2020
DOI: 10.1093/mnras/staa281
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The accuracy of weak lensing simulations

Abstract: We investigate the accuracy of weak lensing simulations by comparing the results of five independently developed lensing simulation codes run on the same input N -body simulation. Our comparison focuses on the lensing convergence maps produced by the codes, and in particular on the corresponding PDFs, power spectra and peak counts. We find that the convergence power spectra of the lensing codes agree to 2% out to scales ≈ 4000. For lensing peak counts, the agreement is better than 5% for peaks with signal-to-n… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
29
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 120 publications
1
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We note that on scales smaller than ∼5 arcmin the results from TREECORR appear to be biased slightly low to those from the direct estimator approach. We furthermore note a difference between the theoretical prediction and the measurements for small aperture radii which is due to shot noise and the line-of-sight discretization from which the simulated data suffers (Hilbert et al 2020).…”
Section: Analysis Of the Cfhtlens Mock Skiesmentioning
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We note that on scales smaller than ∼5 arcmin the results from TREECORR appear to be biased slightly low to those from the direct estimator approach. We furthermore note a difference between the theoretical prediction and the measurements for small aperture radii which is due to shot noise and the line-of-sight discretization from which the simulated data suffers (Hilbert et al 2020).…”
Section: Analysis Of the Cfhtlens Mock Skiesmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Right-hand panel: Shows the same as the left-hand panel, except this time the estimates from the direct estimator have been computed in bins of aperture completeness. The difference between the simulations and the theoretical predictions for small aperture radii can be attributed to shot noise and the line-of-sight discretization from which the simulated data suffers (Hilbert et al 2020). method.…”
Section: Analysis Of the Cfhtlens Mock Skiesmentioning
confidence: 88%
“…The Magneticum past light-cone reconstructions are performed using the Simulation LIght conE buildeR codeslicer 2closely following the pipeline presented in Castro et al (2018) and forked from a MapSim branch (Giocoli et al 2015(Giocoli et al , 2018bHilbert et al 2020). Briefly, light-cones are built in post-processing, assigning particles to predetermined 2D mass maps according to the triangular-shaped cloud mass assignment scheme.…”
Section: Past Light-cone Reconstructionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Magneticum past light-cone reconstructions are performed using the Simulation LIght conE buildeR code -SLICER 2 -closely following the pipeline presented in Castro et al (2018) and forked from a MapSim branch (Giocoli et al 2015(Giocoli et al , 2018aHilbert et al 2020). Shortly, light-cones are built in post-processing, assigning particles to predetermined 2D mass maps according to the triangular-shaped cloud mass assignment scheme.…”
Section: Past Light-cone Reconstructionmentioning
confidence: 99%