 galaxy. Figure \[fg:findC\] bears this out. There is an optimal value of $C_W$ around 1.5, which reflects a balance between minimizing measurement errors as well as any measurement bias inherent in the technique.

With shapelets, we find a systematic underestimate of 11% in the first flexion, and an overestimate of 12% in the second flexion. We find a scatter of about 12% in both. This is very similar in magnitude to the results found by an “optimal” HOLICs analysis.

Correlation of HOLICs and Shapelets Measurement Error
-----------------------------------------------------

Since both HOLICs and shapelets give similar measurement errors at fixed sky noise, it is worth considering whether we expect measurement errors between the two techniques to be correlated. Even in these idealized circumstances, uncorrelated errors would mean that there is significant information in the images which is not being used. In Fig. \[fg:corrsim\], we show the correlation in uncertainty between our $C_W=1.5$ HOLICs estimates, and our shapelets estimates.

For the first flexion, in particular, the correlation is quite high, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of $0.86$. The correlation in measurements of the second flexion is much lower, with $\rho_G=0.23$. Why don’t they have perfect correlation? The two techniques weight various components of the signal (and thus, the noise) differently, and therefore have a slightly different response to the noise.

This general trend is borne out with observed objects as well, in which we will see much higher correlation between measurements of the first flexion than the second flexion between the two techniques.

PSF Deconvolution
-----------------

Finally, we can simulate PSF deconvolution. Using a Gaussian PSF with a characteristic size somewhat larger than the intrinsic image (the correction factor described in equation \[eq:fcorrect\] is 2.7), we distorted and then recovered the flexion estimates from images of increasing intrinsic ellipticity. This analysis is done in the absense of sky noise, and thus any errors in shape recovery represent a systematic effect. We show the fractional errors in measurement of the first and second flexion in Figure \[fg:psf\]. Since it is possible to estimate the systematic error for a combination of measured shear and PSF shape, it is advisable to those wishing to make high-precision flexion measurements to take this empirical correction into account.
galaxy. Figure   \[fg: findC\ ] bears this out. There is an optimal value of $ C_W$ around 1.5, which reflect a libra between minimizing measurement errors as well as any measurement diagonal inherent in the technique. 

 With shapelets, we find a taxonomic underestimate of 11% in the beginning flexion, and an overestimate of 12% in the second flexure. We find a scatter of about 12% in both. This is very exchangeable in magnitude to the results establish by an “ optimal ” HOLICs analysis. 

 Correlation of HOLICs and Shapelets Measurement Error 
 ----------------------------------------------------- 

 Since both HOLICs and shapelets give alike measurement errors at fixed sky noise, it is deserving considering whether we expect measurement error between the two techniques to be correlate. Even in these idealized circumstances, uncorrelated errors would mean that there is significant data in the images which is not being used. In Fig.   \[fg: corrsim\ ], we show the correlation in uncertainty between our $ C_W=1.5 $ HOLICs estimates, and our shapelets estimate. 

 For the first flexion, in particular, the correlation is quite high, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of $ 0.86$. The correlation in measurements of the second flexion is much broken, with $ \rho_G=0.23$. Why do n’t they have perfect correlation coefficient? The two technique weight unit various components of the signal (and therefore, the noise) differently, and consequently have a slightly different reception to the noise. 

 This general trend is borne out with observed objects as well, in which we will see much higher correlation between measurement of the first inflection than the second flexure between the two techniques. 

 PSF Deconvolution 
 ----------------- 

 Finally, we can simulate PSF deconvolution. Using a Gaussian PSF with a characteristic size slightly larger than the intrinsic image (the correction agent described in equation   \[eq: fcorrect\ ] is 2.7), we distorted and then recovered the inflection estimates from image of increasing intrinsic ellipticity. This psychoanalysis is done in the absense of sky noise, and thus any errors in condition recovery represent a taxonomic effect. We show the fractional errors in measurement of the first and second flexion in Figure   \[fg: psf\ ]. Since it is possible to estimate the systematic error for a combination of measured shear and PSF shape, it is advisable to those wishing to stool high - precision inflection measurements to take this empiric correction into account.
 gapaxy. Figure \[fg:findC\] bears this out. There is an mptimam value uf $C_W$ around 1.5, which reflects a balabce between minimizing measuremvnt errorw as qell as anb measurcient nias nnierent in the tgchnique.

With shapelets, we xivd a systematic underestimate of 11% in ehe firxt flexion, and ag ovtreftimzne of 12% in the second flexion. We find a scatter of anout 12% in both. This is very simllar in magnitude ho the resuots siund by an “ootimal” HOLPEs analysis.

Dorrelation of HOLICs and Shapeuets Keasuremenj Srgmr
-----------------------------------------------------

Since boti HOLIBs and shapelcns give similat measurement crrorv ar fixed sky noise, it ms worth considering whether fe expect measuremebt errots bedweev thd tso tschniqkes to be cordelated. Eveb in these idealizec sptcumstances, hncorrqlwted errors would mean that there is sicniricant information in tye images which is noj being usqd. In Fig. \[fg:corrsim\], we show the correlation in uncartaiith bttqeen uyr $C_W=1.5$ HOLICs estimates, and our shapelets estimaess.

Gog the first flexijn, in partivupat, the correlatkon is qujte high, with a Pewrson cjrrelqtion coesficoent of $0.86$. The correlation in measurementf of the second flerion is much lowgr, witn $\rho_G=0.23$. Why don’t they hare perrect correlwtion? The gwo techniques wdigmt earious components of the fignal (anv thux, the nuise) diffewently, and thercxore have a slightpy diyferett responsf to the noise.

This general trenv is borne ouj whth observeb objegts as well, in rhich we will xee muck highdr correlanion betwxen measuremqnts of the fhtst flexion tian the sqcone flwxion bdgween the two yechniques.

PSF Deconcolution
-----------------

Finally, we cav simulate PSF dzeobvolution. Using a Eaufspan PFX with a chasactdriryic skze somtchab lxrget than the intrinsic imafe (the correction gagtor desctibed in qquation \[eq:fcotrect\] is 2.7), we distogted end thxn recpveted the flexion estimates from jmages of ingreasing intrynsig eljipticity. Chis analysis is done in the absense of wky noise, and thus any errors in shapg rtcovery reprexent w systemadic effect. We show tye fractional errprs in measurement of the fhrst wnd second flexion in Figure \[fg:psf\]. Since it is possible to estimate the sywtematmc error for z cokbinaniou oy measuwed diear and PSF shapv, it is advisable to those wishiig to make hngh-precision flexion measuremrngs to take thks empirical correction jnto accpunt.
galaxy. Figure \[fg:findC\] bears this out. There optimal of $C_W$ 1.5, which reflects errors well as any bias inherent in technique. With shapelets, we find a underestimate of 11% in the first flexion, and an overestimate of 12% in second flexion. We find a scatter of about 12% in both. This is similar magnitude the found by an “optimal” HOLICs analysis. Correlation of HOLICs and Shapelets Measurement Error ----------------------------------------------------- Since both and shapelets give similar measurement errors at fixed noise, it is worth whether we expect measurement errors the techniques to correlated. in idealized circumstances, uncorrelated would mean that there is significant information in the images which is not being used. In Fig. we show in uncertainty our HOLICs and our shapelets the first flexion, in particular, the high, with a Pearson correlation coefficient of $0.86$. correlation in of the second flexion is much with $\rho_G=0.23$. Why don’t they have perfect correlation? two techniques weight various components of the signal (and thus, the noise) differently, and therefore slightly different response to noise. This general is out observed as well, which we will see much higher correlation between measurements of the flexion than the second flexion between the two techniques. PSF Finally, can simulate PSF Using a Gaussian PSF a size somewhat larger than image correction equation is we distorted and then the flexion estimates from images increasing intrinsic ellipticity. This absense of sky noise, and thus any errors shape recovery represent a systematic effect. We the fractional errors in measurement of the first and second flexion in \[fg:psf\]. Since possible to estimate the systematic error for a of measured shear and shape, it is advisable to those wishing to make flexion to take empirical correction into
 galaxy. Figure \[fg:findC\] bears tHis out. TherE is an OptImaL vAlue Of $C_W$ Around 1.5, which refLEcts A balance between minimizIng meAsURemeNT eRrors As well aS AnY MEasUrEmEnt BiAS iNhereNt iN the tecHnique.

With ShaPeLets, we find a sYStEmatic undeResTimate of 11% in thE fiRst fleXiOn, aND an ovEreStimaTe of 12% in THe secoNd flexion. we FInd a scATter of aBOUt 12% In boTh. This is very similAR iN Magnitude to the ResultS fOUnD BY an “OptImal” HOLICs AnAlysiS.

correlaTIoN OF hOLics and ShapeletS MeasuremenT errOr
-----------------------------------------------------

SincE bOth hoLICs aNd shaPeLEts Give similar MeasUrement erRors at FIxed sky NOise, it iS worth ConSidErinG WhEtHer We EXpeCT mEasURemEnt errorS bEtWeen tHe twO TECHniqUes To be CorreLated. Even in thEse IdeaLIzeD circUmstaNces, UnCorreLated eRrors WoUld mean that therE is sIgnificanT inFoRmaTiOn in tHE imageS whIch Is not beIng used. iN FiG. \[fG:CORrSim\], we show the correlAtION iN uncertaInty beTWeEn OUr $C_W=1.5$ HOLIcs EstImatES, And ouR shaPElEts estimAtes.

FoR ThE fIrst fleXiOn, in paRtIcuLar, The coRRelaTion is Quite higH, with A pearson correlaTIon coefficienT Of $0.86$. tHE cORrelAtiOn in measureMentS Of thE secONd FleXIon is Much lOwER, wITh $\rho_G=0.23$. Why don’t they haVe PerfecT corrElation? The two Techniques WEIGht varioUs coMPoNEnts of the signaL (and tHus, the noisE) DifferenTly, anD therefoRe have a slIGHtly diffEreNt rEspOnsE TO tHe noise.

This geNERal tReNd is borNe oUt with oBseRveD obJecTs As well, in wHich we wiLl SeE mUcH hiGher cORrelatioN bEtwEeN meAsureMEnts of The fiRst fLeXiON thAn the seCOnD FLexiOn BeTweeN thE tWo tecHniqUEs.

PsF DeconVolution
-----------------

FInaLLy, we CaN sImulate pSF deconvolutIoN. Using a GauSsIan pSF witH A CharacteRistic size somewhat largeR Than the IntRinsiC imaGe (the corrEctIon facTor DEscribEd in eqUatioN \[eQ:fcORRect\] iS 2.7), WE dIstOrTed and then RECovEred tHe FlexIon estiMates from images of iNCreAsing intrinsiC elLiptICItY. ThIS aNAlySiS Is dONE in the absense of Sky noise, anD tHUs Any errors iN ShaPe RecoverY represEnt a sYStematiC effect. We Show the frAcTionAL ErrOrs in measuRement of The first aND secoND fLexioN in figure \[Fg:Psf\]. since It is poSSibLe to eStimatE tHe systEmatiC eRror for a Combination of measured shEar and pSF shApe, It is advisAblE To tHose wishiNg to Make high-prEciSioN flexIon MEasurEmenTS tO taKE this EmpiRIcal correCTiOn iNTO aCcount.
 galaxy. Figure \[fg:findC \] bears t his o ut.  Th er e is  anoptimal valueo f $C _W$ around 1.5, whichrefle ct s  a b a la nce b etweenm in i m izi ng  m eas ur e me nt er ror s as we ll as anymea su rement biasi nh erent in t hetechnique.
Wit h shap el ets ,  we f ind  a sy stemat i c unde restimate  o f  11% i n  the fi r s tflex ion, and an overe s ti m ate of 12% inthe se co n df l exi on.  We find a  s catte r  of abo u t1 2 %  in both. This is  very simil a r i n magn it ude to the  resu lt s  fo und by an “ opti mal” HOLI Cs ana l ysis.
C orrelat ion of  HO LIC s an d  S ha pel et s  Me a su rem e ntError
-- -- -- ----- ---- - - - - ---- --- ---- ----- ------------- --- --
S inc e bot h HOL ICsan d sha pelets  give  s imilar measurem enterrors at  fi xe d s ky  nois e , it i s w ort h consi deringw het he r w eexpect measurement  e r r or s betwee n thet wo  t e chniques  t o b e co r r elate d. E v en  in thes e idea l iz ed  circum st ances,  u nco rre lated erro rs wou ld meanthatt here is signif i cant informat i on i nt he i mag es which is  not bein g us e d.  In Fig.\[fg: co r rs i m\], we show the co rr elatio n inuncertainty b etween our $ C _W=1.5$HOLI C se stimates, andour s hapelets e s timates. 

For  the fir st flexio n ,  in part icu lar , t hec o rr elation is qu i t e hi gh , witha P earsoncor rel ati onco efficient  of $0.8 6$ .Th ecor relat i on in me as ure me nts  of t h e seco nd fl exio nis muc h lower ,  w i t h $\ rh o_ G=0. 23$ .Why d on’t the y haveperfect c orr e lati on ?The two  techniques w ei ght variou scom ponent s of the s ignal (and thus, the no i se) dif fer ently , an d therefo rehave a  sl i ghtlydiffer ent r es pon s e  to t h e  n ois e. 

This gen e r altrend  i s bo rne out  with observed obj e cts  as well, inwhi ch w e wi lls ee muc hh igh e r  correlation be tween meas ur e me nts of the fir st  flexio n thanthe s e cond fl exion bet ween thetw o te c h niq ues.

PSFDeconvol ution
--- - ----- - -- ----- 

F inally ,wecan s imulat e  PS F dec onvolu ti on. Us ing a  G aussianPSF with a characterist ic siz e som ewh at larger  th a n t he intrin sicimage (the  co rre ction  fa c tor d escr i be d i n  equa tion \[eq:fcor r ec t\] i s2.7), we di s t o rte d and  th e n reco vere d the flexion est i mates from ima geso f  in cre a sing  i ntrinsic ellip tic it y .  This an al ysis is don e in the  a b sense  of sk y nois e, andt h us any er rors  in  shape re cov er y  repres en ta  syste mati ceffect . We s h ow t h e  fractional erro rs in m easur e men t ofth e first andsecond fle xion in Fig ure \[ fg:p sf\].  Sinceit  is po ssi bl e to estim a te the sy stema tic err or  for  acombin atio n of me asur ed  sh ear and P S F  s h ap e, itis a dvisa bl e to  those wi s hing tomak e  high-p re cis i o n flex i on m easurement s t o tak e this empir i calc or r ectio n into  accou nt.
 galaxy._Figure \[fg:findC\] bears_this out. There is_an optimal_value_of $C_W$_around_1.5, which reflects_a balance between_minimizing measurement errors as_well as any_measurement_bias inherent in the technique.

With shapelets, we find a systematic underestimate of 11% in_the_first flexion,_and_an_overestimate of 12% in the_second flexion. We find a_scatter of_about 12% in both. This is very similar_in_magnitude to the_results found by an “optimal” HOLICs analysis.

Correlation of HOLICs_and Shapelets Measurement Error
-----------------------------------------------------

Since both HOLICs_and shapelets give_similar_measurement_errors at fixed sky_noise, it is worth considering whether_we expect measurement errors between the_two techniques to be correlated. Even in_these idealized circumstances, uncorrelated errors would_mean that there is significant_information in_the images which is not_being used. In_Fig. \[fg:corrsim\], we_show the correlation_in uncertainty between our $C_W=1.5$ HOLICs_estimates, and our_shapelets estimates.

For the first flexion, in_particular,_the correlation is_quite_high,_with a_Pearson correlation coefficient_of_$0.86$. The_correlation_in measurements of the second flexion_is_much lower, with $\rho_G=0.23$. Why don’t they_have perfect correlation? The_two_techniques weight various components_of the signal (and thus,_the noise) differently, and therefore have_a slightly_different response_to the noise.

This general trend is borne out with observed objects_as well, in which we will_see much higher correlation_between measurements_of_the first flexion_than_the second_flexion between the two techniques.

PSF Deconvolution
-----------------

Finally, we_can simulate_PSF deconvolution. Using a Gaussian PSF_with a characteristic size_somewhat_larger than the intrinsic image (the_correction factor described in equation \[eq:fcorrect\] is_2.7), we distorted and then_recovered_the_flexion estimates from images of_increasing intrinsic ellipticity. This analysis is_done in the_absense of sky noise, and thus any_errors_in shape recovery represent a systematic_effect._We show the fractional errors in_measurement_of_the first and second flexion_in Figure \[fg:psf\]. Since it is possible_to estimate the systematic error for a combination of_measured shear and_PSF shape, it is advisable_to_those_wishing to make high-precision flexion measurements to take this empirical_correction into_account.