AG-2026.06-2127·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: astro-ph.IM
Slay the Shear: A Unified Statistical Framework for Weak Gravitational Lensing Shear Estimation
Authors
- Shurui Lin
- Xiangchong Li
- Xin Liu
Abstract
Weak gravitational lensing shear measurements are fundamentally limited by shape noise arising from the intrinsic diversity of galaxy morphologies. Upcoming surveys such as Rubin/LSST, Euclid, and Roman demand more flexible, statistically optimal approaches that can fully exploit high-dimensional image information. In this work, we develop a unified theoretical framework for shear estimation that connects classical response-based methods, shape noise, and modern machine-learning estimators through the concept of the score function -- the gradient of the image likelihood with respect to shear. We show that, for a general spin-2 ellipticity definition, the ensemble shear response corresponds to an inner product between the estimator and the score function, and that the score provides the minimum-variance unbiased shear estimator. By incorporating response into the classical inverse-variance weight, we prove that the response-weighted inverse-variance weight is a general shape-noise-minimizing weight, independent of the intrinsic shape distribution. Furthermore, we propose Response-weighted Denoising Score Matching (RDSM) that exploits the remaining structure to reduce shape noise by ${\sim}17.5\%$ relative to moment-based methods at LSST 10-year depth while maintaining a multiplicative shear estimation bias below $2\times 10^{-3}$. Our result clarifies the optimality of existing calibration techniques while revealing a principled pathway for constructing improved estimators via nonlinear shape transformations and learned representations.
Submitted
24 June 20261 month ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2606.25596
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.