Covariance-audited analysis measures a weak-lensing signal in a photometric lens sample, indicating potential environmental effects.
We present a covariance-audited measurement of an environment-dependent weak-lensing differential signal in the Kilo-Degree Survey (KiDS). Using a bright photometric lens sample (≈9.9×10^5 lenses in 27 tomographic slices), we split lenses into low- and high-environment quintiles based on a projected density proxy and measure excess surface density profiles ΔΣ(R). We form the differential signal ΔΔΣ(R)=ΔΣ_low(R)−ΔΣ_high(R) across 15 angular bins (R≈0.65–18 arcmin) and use the 45°-rotated cross component as the primary null channel. Full per-slice jackknife covariance matrices are propagated throughout and explicitly audited for completeness, conditioning, and inversion stability (27/27 slices pass; condition numbers up to ~4×10^3; results invariant under diagonal-jitter scans). We find that the stacked tangential channel deviates from an R-matched random-points null baseline under the same constant-offset statistic (Δâ=−1.001×10^−3 in the internal Σ_crit-weighted estimator normalization; Δχ^2_red=+1.108 relative to the null), while the cross channel remains near null (Δχ^2_red=+0.051). A dedicated systematics suite (PSF-leakage template marginalization, random-points null, boost-factor audit, bin-centre mismatch) does not identify a tested additive systematic capable of explaining the tangential residual; the PSF template explains ≲7% of the signal RMS and does not reduce χ^2_red. Matched and SFR-controlled catalogue variants are provided for confounder control and independent re-analysis; a phenomenological template comparison to external-field lensing templates is included as a shape-basis summary. New in this version: This release is a cleaned, submission-ready manuscript update with consolidated notation, clarified estimator/units handling (internal normalization vs. shear units), tightened baseline definitions, and updated metadata (author, affiliations, and repository link), plus minor text edits to improve traceability and reproducibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jan-Frederik Flügge (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: