1: %%

2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'

3: %%

4: %% Modified 03 Jan 01

5: %%

6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the

7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.

8: 

9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document

10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore

11: %% any data that comes before this command.

12: 

13: %% The command below calls the preprint style

14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

17: 

18: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

19: 

20: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

21: 

22: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

23: 

24: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

25: 

26: % \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

27: 

28: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

29: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

30: %% the \begin{document} command.

31: %%

32: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

33: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

34: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

35: %% for information.

36: 

37: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}

38: \newcommand{\myemail}{fan@bac.pku.edu.cn}

39: 

40: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

41: 

42: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}

43: 

44: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

45: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

46: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

47: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

48: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.  Running heads

49: %% will not print in the manuscript style.

50: 

51: \shorttitle{Short Title} \shortauthors{Fan}

52: 

53: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

54: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

55: 

56: \begin{document}

57: 

58: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

59: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

60: %% you desire.

61: 

62: \title{Intrinsic alignments of galaxies and their effects on 

63: weak lensing detections of mass concentrations}

64: 

65: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

66: %% author and affiliation information.

67: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

68: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

69: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

70: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.

71: 

72: \author{Z.-H. Fan}

73: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Peking University,

74:     Beijing 100871, China}

75: \email{fan@bac.pku.edu.cn}

76: 

77: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which

78: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name.  Specify alternate

79: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each

80: %% affiliation.

81: 

82: %\altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory.

83: %CTIO is operated by AURA, Inc.\ under contract to the National Science

84: %Foundation.}

85: %\altaffiltext{2}{Society of Fellows, Harvard University.}

86: %\altaffiltext{3}{present address: Center for Astrophysics,

87: %    60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}

88: %\altaffiltext{4}{Visiting Programmer, Space Telescope Science Institute}

89: %\altaffiltext{5}{Patron, Alonso's Bar and Grill}

90: 

91: 

92: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

93: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

94: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

95: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

96: %% editorial office after submission.

97: 

98: %\begin{abstract}

99: %This is a preliminary report on surface photometry of the major

100: %fraction of known globular clusters, to see which of them show the signs

101: %of a collapsed core.

102: %We also explore some diversionary mathematics and recreational tables.

103: %\end{abstract}

104: \begin{abstract}

105: 

106: %Searching for mass concentrations in the universe with their weak lensing effects 

107: %is uniquely advantageous in cosmological studies. 

108: %Intrinsic ellipticities of background 

109: %galaxies show up as noises and generate false peaks in convergence $\kappa$ maps. 

110: %This contamination can affect the efficiency of cluster detections and result

111: %false detections of 'dark clumps'. 

112: %Furthermore, the formation and evolution of galaxies 

113: %are affected by their environment resulting 

114: %intrinsic alignments between their ellipticities.

115: %This correlation not only contaminates the two-point statistics 

116: %of lensing signals directly, but also produces additional false peaks in 

117: %$\kappa$ maps. 

118: %The existence of false peaks can significantly affect the efficiency of 

119: %weak lensing cluster detections and lead to faulty conclusions on the nature of 'dark clumps'.

120: In this paper we investigate the influence of the intrinsic alignment of background galaxies

121: on weak lensing detections of mass concentrations. Specifically,

122: we analyze the number counts of false peaks resulting from intrinsic ellipticities

123: in lensing convergence maps. Including the alignment of source galaxies, 

124: the full noise variance from intrinsic ellipticites in convergence $\kappa$-maps can be written as 

125: $\sigma^2_0=\sigma^2_{0ran}+\sigma^2_{0corr}$, where $\sigma^2_{0ran}$

126: is the noise contributed from randomly oriented source galaxies and

127: $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ denotes the additional noise from intrinsic alignments.

128: However, it is observationally difficult to measure $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ 

129: and usually only $\sigma^2_{0ran}$ can be estimated in weak lensing observations.

130: Thus the observational signal-to-noise ratio is often defined with respect to $\sigma_{0ran}$,

131: which is denoted as $\nu_{ran}$ in this paper.  

132: The true signal-to-noise ratio $\nu$ in terms of $\sigma_0$ is then

133: $\nu=\nu_{ran}/(1+\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran})^{1/2}$.

134: Given a detection threshold on $\nu_{ran}$, a larger value of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$

135: leads to a lower threshold on $\nu$ and therefore a larger expected number of 

136: false peaks.  

137: %In real observations, the random part of the noise variance $\sigma^2_{0ran}$ from intrinsic

138: %ellipticities of background galaxies can be estimated in a straightforward way.

139: %The contribution from the alignment, denoted by $\sigma^2_{0corr}$, however, 

140: %is difficult to obtain. The signal-to-noise ratio is thus often defined 

141: %as $\nu_{ran}=\kappa/\sigma_{0ran}$. 

142: %We find that the average number of false peaks $N_{peak}(\nu_{ran})$ 

143: %with the detection threshold $\nu_{ran}$ is very sensitive to $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$.

144: %$N_{peak}(\nu_{ran})=\int_{\nu}n_{peak}(\nu')d\nu'$ at $\nu_{ran}\ge 3$ is very sensitive to 

145: %$\sigma^2_{0corr}$, where $\nu=\nu_{ran}/(1+\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran})^{1/2}$. 

146: With $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 10\%$,  

147: the average number of false peaks with $\nu_{ran}\ge 3.5$ nearly doubles 

148: compared to that without considering the alignment, 

149: and for $\nu_{ran}\ge 5$, the number is tripled. 

150: As a result, the efficiency of weak lensing cluster detection 

151: degrades significantly. The increase of the number of false peaks 

152: also affects the likelihood of the existence of dark clumps. 

153: On the other hand, if one can observationally distinguish 

154: false peaks and peaks associated with real mass concentrations, e.g., using lensing tomography 

155: and follow up observations, the number of false peaks can be used to constrain tightly the 

156: level of intrinsic alignments of source galaxies.  

157: The CFHTLS Deep $3.61\hbox{ deg}^2$ lensing observations and follow up studies 

158: find that $5$ out of the $14$ peaks with $\nu_{ran} > 3.5$ are likely to be false peaks, giving

159: rise to a constraint $\sigma^2_{0corr}\le 1.6\times 10^{-5}$ ($1\sigma$) at the angular

160: scale of $1\hbox{ arcmin}$ for galaxies at redshift $z\sim 1$. This 

161: corresponds to $C_{11}+C_{22}\le 3.2\times 10^{-5}$, 

162: where $C_{11}$ and $C_{22}$ are, respectively, the angular correlations

163: of intrinsic ellipticities $e_1$ and $e_2$ of background galaxies.  

164: This result is fully consistent with the limits on the intrinsic alignment derived directly

165: from observations of Sloan Digtal Sky Servey.    

166:  

167:  

168: \end{abstract}

169: 

170: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

171: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

172: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

173: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

174: 

175: \keywords{cosmology: theory --- dark matter --- galaxy: cluster ---

176: general --- gravitational lensing --- large-scale structure of universe}

177: 

178: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.

179: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep

180: %% and \citet commands to identify citations.  The citations are

181: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds

182: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have

183: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus

184: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for

185: %% each reference.

186: 

187: %\section{Introduction}

188: %

189: %A focal problem today in the dynamics of globular clusters is

190: %core collapse.  It has been predicted by theory

191: %for decades \citep{hen61,lyn68,spi85}, but

192: %observation has been less alert to the phenomenon. For many years the

193: %central brightness peak in M15 \citep{kin75,new78}

194: %seemed a unique anomaly.  Then \citet{aur82} suggested a central peak

195: %in NGC 6397, and a limited photographic survey of ours \citep[Paper I]{djo84}

196: %found three more cases, including NGC 6624, whose

197: %sharp center had often been remarked on \citep{can78}.

198: %ii

199: %i$

200: %i$

201: \section{Introduction}

202: Gravitational lensing effects are the only ways to directly measure the

203: distribution of dark matter in the universe (e.g., Hoekstra et al. 2006). 

204: Because of their dependence on the formation of structures as well as on the geometry of the universe,

205: lensing effects are sensitive to the nature of dark energy, and

206: therefore are highly promising in dark energy studies (e.g., Knox et al. 2006; Munshi et al. 2006). 

207: Weak gravitational lensing effects are mostly extracted from image distortions of 

208: background galaxies (e.g., Bartelmann \& Schneider 2001).

209: The intrinsic ellipticities of galaxies therefore present themselves as important 

210: errors in lensing observations (e.g., Kaiser \& Squires 1993; Schneider 1996). 

211: It has been commonly assumed that the intrinsic ellipticities of different background galaxies 

212: are statistically uncorrelated, and thus the average shear measured over a large enough 

213: number of galaxies gives an unbiased estimate on the lensing effects (e.g., Kaiser \& Squires 1993). 

214: However, the formation of galaxies is highly affected by their environment, 

215: and the shapes of galaxies can well be correlated if they are close enough. 

216: With the assumption that the shapes of galaxies are well represented by the shapes

217: of their host dark matter halos, numerical simulations indicate that the shape correlations 

218: range from $10^{-5}$ to $10^{-3}$ on angular scales of a few arcminutes depending on 

219: halos masses and redshift distributions of source galaxies (e.g., Heavens et al. 2000;

220: Croft \& Metzler 2000; Jing 2002; Porciani et al. 2002; Heymans et al. 2006). The existence of such 

221: correlations can contaminate lensing signals significantly. 

222: Weak lensing effects are directly related to lensing potentials, and thus

223: only the gradient modes, i.e., $E$-modes, are expected (e.g., Crittenden et al. 2001).  

224: The presence of $B$-modes can therefore be used to reveal the

225: existence of different systematics including the intrinsic alignments,

226: but the correction to the $E$-mode amplitude cannot be done in a straightforward way 

227: %Also the validity of

228: %the upper limits depends on the properties of observational systematics, such as those of the PSF 

229: (e.g., Heymans et al. 2004). Down-weighting or removing physically closed pairs 

230: of background galaxies in lensing analyses reduces the contamination of intrinsic 

231: alignments at the expense of increasing shot noises if the alignments extend to 

232: relatively large scales (e.g., Heymans et al. 2004). Because of the different redshift-dependence

233: for lensing signals and for intrinsic alignments, the tomographic method based on 

234: template fitting has been proposed to isolate different components assuming the availability

235: of photometric redshifts for background galaxies (King \& Schneider 2003). This method

236: has also been extended to include shear-ellipticity cross correlations in the analyses

237: (e.g., Hirata \& Seljak 2004; King 2006).

238:  

239: The intrinsic alignments of galaxies have been searched observationally. The SuperCOSMOS

240: data on nearby galaxies (with median redshift $z\sim 0.1$) reveal a level of $10^{-5}$ to 

241: $10^{-4}$ on the correlation of intrinsic ellipticities of galaxies over the angular 

242: scales of a few tens of arcminutes (Brown et al. 2002). 

243: Analyses on close pairs of galaxies from COMBO-17 data (with $z\sim 0.6$) 

244: find the intrinsic alignments to be consistent with zero

245: but with uncertainties on the order of $a\  few \times 10^{-4}$ 

246: on scales of a few arcminutes (Heymans et al. 2004). 

247: Investigations on SDSS main sample with $z\sim 0.1$ and its subsamples

248: with $z\sim 0.07$ to $z\sim 0.21$ conclude that no significant intrinsic alignments

249: are detected (Mandelbaum et al. 2006). The observational results

250: on the intrinsic alignments are close to the lower limits given by different numerical 

251: simulations on dark matter halos (e.g., Heymans et al. 2006). 

252: It has been pointed out that the existence of 

253: misalignment between baryonic matter and dark matter can significantly

254: reduce the intrinsic alignment of background galaxies in comparison with 

255: that of dark matter halos and may explain the low observational results 

256: found in different surveys (Heymans et al. 2006).

257: 

258: In this paper, we study the effects of the intrinsic alignment on finding

259: mass concentrations through weak lensing effects. Being the largest virialized objects in the universe,

260: clusters of galaxies are important cosmological probes because their formation

261: and evolution depend sensitively on cosmologies (e.g., Borgani 2006; Fan \& Chiueth 2001). 

262: However, large uncertainties exist in linking cluster observables,

263: such as galaxy richness, X-ray brightness and Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect,

264: to their mass, the important quantity in cosmological analyses (e.g., Bode et al. 2006).  

265: On the other hand, lensing effects are generated through gravitation, and depend 

266: on the total mass distribution.

267: Thus it is expected that a cluster sample detected through weak lensing effects

268: is better suited for cosmological studies in comparison with those selected by other probes

269: (e.g., White et al. 2002; Hamana et al. 2004; Tang \& Fan 2005; Fang \& Haiman 2006).  

270: Without involving complicated gas physics, weak lensing cluster detections, however, have their own

271: shortcomings. Besides observational errors, physical systematics, such as

272: projection effects and complex mass distributions of clusters

273: of galaxies, affect the selection function of weak lensing clusters considerably.

274: Thus weak lensing cluster samples are not truly mass-selected (Tang \& Fan 2005).

275: The intrinsic ellipticities of background galaxies result false peaks in lensing 

276: maps and reduce the efficiency of cluster detections significantly (e.g., White et al. 2002). 

277: The false peaks could also be misinterpreted as dark clumps, which might lead to 

278: a faulty conclusion regarding the validity of a cosmological model. 

279: Here we explore how the existence of the intrinsic alignment of background galaxies

280: affects the number of false peaks in lensing convergence maps. We further propose

281: that the number of false peaks can be used to constrain sensitively the level of the 

282: intrinsic alignment if one can separate true and false peaks observationally.

283: 

284: The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In \S2, we discuss the 

285: correlations of galaxy ellipticities based on the model proposed by Heymans et al. (2004;

286: Heymans et al. 2006).

287: In \S3, we study the dependence of the number of false peaks on the intrinsic

288: alignment of background galaxies. In \S4, we analyze the constraints on the intrinsic

289: alignment from the results of CFHTLS Deep on the number of false peaks given by 

290: Gavazzi and Soucail (2007). Discussions are presented in \S5. 

291: 

292: 

293: \section{Intrinsic alignments of galaxies}

294: % \subsection{Gas density distribution}

295: 

296: Galaxies do not form in isolated ways. Environmental effects 

297: play important roles in shaping galaxies. Therefore 

298: correlations of ellipticities of galaxies are expected if they are 

299: close enough. 

300: %Such correlations have been studied both analytically

301: %and numerically. In this paper, we adopt the functional form 

302: %put forward by Heymans et al. (2006).

303: %%In this paper, we mainly use the results of Jing (2002).

304: 

305: %With numerical simulations, Jing (2002) analyzes the alignment of the inner part of 

306: %dark matter halos at redshift $z=1$. 

307: 

308: %The ellipticities of dark matter halos where galaxies reside in 

309: %the projected $xy$-plane are defined as 

310: %\begin{equation}\label{w1}

311: %e_1={I_{xx}-I_{yy}\over I_{xx}+I_{yy}},\ \ \ \   e_2={2I_{xy}\over I_{xx}+I_{yy}},

312: %\end{equation} 

313: %where ($I_{yy}$ and $I_{xy}$ have similar forms)

314: %\begin{equation}\label{w1}

315: %I_{xx}={1\over N}\Sigma_{i=1}^{N}(x_i-\bar x)(x_i-\bar x).

316: %\end{equation}

317: %Here $N$ is the number of equal mass-particles contained in a simulated halo,

318: %and $(\bar x, \bar y)$ are the coordinates of the center of mass of the halo.

319: %Concerning two-point correlations $c_{ij}(\vec r)=<e_i(\vec x)e_j(\vec x+\vec r)>$, 

320: %it is convenient to choose $x$-axis and $y$-axis

321: %to be parallel and perpendicular to the line joining the two considered halos in the

322: %projected plane. 

323: 

324: The ellipticity of a galaxy is defined through the second moments of its surface

325: brightness profile $S(x,y)$. Specifically, we adopt the following definitions

326: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

327: 2e_1={I_{xx}-I_{yy}\over I_{xx}+I_{yy}},\ \ \ \   2e_2={2I_{xy}\over I_{xx}+I_{yy}},

328: \end{equation}

329: where ($I_{yy}$ and $I_{xy}$ have similar forms)

330: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

331: %I_{xx}={1\over N}\Sigma_{i=1}^{N}(x_i-\bar x)(x_i-\bar x).

332: I_{xx}={\int S(x,y)(x_i-\bar x)(x_i-\bar x)dx dy\over \int S(x,y) dx dy}.

333: \end{equation}

334: Here $(\bar x, \bar y)$ are the coordinates of the center of the galaxy image.

335: Concerning two-point correlations $c_{ij}(\vec r)=<e_i(\vec x)e_j(\vec x+\vec r)>$, 

336: it is convenient to choose $x$-axis and $y$-axis

337: to be parallel and perpendicular to the line joining the two considered galaxies in the

338: projected plane. 

339: 

340: Numerical simulations show that $c_{12}=<e_1(\vec x)e_2(\vec x+\vec r)>\approx 0$ 

341: (e.g., Jing 2002; Heymans et al. 2004; Heymans et al. 2006). For 

342: $c_{ii}=<e_i(\vec x)e_i(\vec x+\vec r)>$ ($i=1,\hbox{ 2}$), 

343: we use the fitting formula provided by Heymans et al. (2004), which is 

344: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

345: c_{ii}={0.001A_i\over 1+(r/B_i)^2}.

346: \end{equation}

347: Our following analyses primarily concern $\eta(r)=<e_1(\vec x)e_1(\vec x+\vec r)>

348: +<e_2(\vec x)e_2(\vec x+\vec r)>=c_{11}+c_{22}$,  which can also be written as 

349: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

350: \eta(r)={0.001A\over 1+(r/B)^2}.

351: \end{equation}

352: Incorporating different galaxy models in numerical simulations, the fitting values 

353: of $A$ and $B$ are obtained for each model by Heymans et al. (2004; Heymans et al. 2006).

354: Comparing with SDSS observations, Mandelbaum et al. (2006) present their fitting results

355: with $B=1h^{-1}\hbox{Mpc}$, and $A=0.57\pm 0.72$ (see also Heymans et al. 2006).

356: 

357: To investigate their influence on weak lensing effects, we need to analyze the angular

358: correlation of intrinsic ellipticities, which is related to the three dimensional 

359: correlation $c_{ij}(\vec r)$ through the following equation

360: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

361: C_{ij}(\theta)={\int r_1^2\phi(r_1)r_2^2\phi(r_2)dr_1dr_2[1+\xi(r_{12})]c_{ij}(r_p,\pi) 

362: \over \int r_1^2\phi(r_1)r_2^2\phi(r_2)dr_1

363: dr_2[1+\xi(r_{12})]},

364: \end{equation}

365: where $\phi(r)$ and $\xi(r)$ are the selection function and the two-point correlation function

366: for background galaxies, and $r_p$ and $\pi$ are the 

367: comoving separations of two galaxies perpendicular and along the line of sight, respectively.

368: Since the correlations decrease quickly on large scales, in the small-angle limit we have

369: (e.g., Jing 2002),

370: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

371: C_{ij}(\theta)={\int r^4\phi(r)^2 dr \Sigma_{ij}(r\theta)

372: \over [\int r^2\phi(r) dr]^2+\int r^4 \phi(r)^2 dr\int d\pi \xi(r\theta,\pi)},

373: \end{equation}

374: where 

375: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

376: \Sigma_{ij}(r_p)=\int d\pi [1+\xi(r_p,\pi)]c_{ij}(r_p,\pi).

377: \end{equation}

378: 

379: %The following fitting expressions for $\Sigma_{ij}$ are presented in Jing (2002)  

380: %\begin{equation}\label{w1}

381: %\Sigma_{11}(r_p;\ge M_h)={0.18(M_h/10^{10}h^{-1}\hbox{M}_{\odot})^{0.65}

382: %\over r_p^{0.5}(r_p+5)}h^{-1}\hbox{Mpc},

383: %\end{equation}

384: %

385: %\begin{equation}\label{w1}

386: %\Sigma_{22}(r_p;\ge M_h)={0.014(M_h/10^{10}h^{-1}\hbox{M}_{\odot})^{0.50}

387: %\over r_p^{0.6}\hbox{ exp}[0.5(r_p/6)^2]}h^{-1}\hbox{Mpc},

388: %\end{equation}

389: %and 

390: %\begin{equation}\label{w1}

391: %\Sigma_{12}(r_p;\ge M_h)\approx 0,

392: %\end{equation}

393: %where $M_h$ is the lower mass limit of the dark matter halos considered.

394: 

395: For weak lensing effects, both the convergence $\kappa$ and the shear $\gamma$

396: are determined by the second derivatives of the lensing potential $\phi$, and

397: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

398: \kappa={\nabla^2 \phi \over 2}, \quad \gamma_1={(\phi_{,11}-\phi_{,22})\over 2},

399: \quad \gamma_2=\phi_{,12},

400: \end{equation}

401: where $\phi_{,ij}=\partial_i\partial_j \phi$.

402: 

403: Concerning weak lensing detections of mass concentrations, we focus on the 

404: convergence $\kappa$ field.  In the weak lensing limit, it is related to the

405: shear $\gamma$ in Fourier space through

406: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

407: \tilde\kappa(\vec k)=c_{\alpha}(k)\tilde \gamma_{\alpha}(\vec k),

408: \end{equation}

409: where the summation over $\alpha=(1,2)$ is implied, and 

410: $c_{\alpha}=[\cos (2\varphi),\sin (2\varphi)]$ with 

411: $\vec k=k(\cos \varphi,\sin \varphi)$ (Kaiser \& Squires 1993).

412: Observationally, the shear $\gamma$ can be estimated from the

413: ellipticities of galaxy images. In the weak lensing limit, we have

414: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

415: \mathbf{e^{(O)}}\approx {\mathbf{\gamma}} + \mathbf{e^{(S)}},

416: \end{equation}

417: where $\mathbf{e}$ is defined in eq.(1), and the superscripts 'O' and 'S' denote

418: observed image and source, respectively. Then the noisy convergence $\kappa_n$ 

419: including the contamination from source ellipticities follows

420: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

421: \tilde \kappa_n(\vec k)=c_{\alpha}(k)[\tilde e^{(O)}_{\alpha}(\vec k)]

422: =\tilde \kappa(\vec k)+c_{\alpha}(k)[\tilde e^{(S)}_{\alpha}(\vec k)].

423: \end{equation}

424: Considering smoothed quantities, we have (e.g., van Waerbeke 2000)

425: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

426: \mathbf{\Sigma}^{(O)}(\vec \theta)=\mathbf\Gamma(\vec \theta)

427: +{1\over n_g}\sum_{i=1}^{N_g} W(\vec \theta -\vec \theta_i)\mathbf{e}^{(S)}(\vec \theta_i),

428: \end{equation}

429: and

430: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

431: K_N(\vec \theta)=\int d\vec k \hbox{ } e^{-i\vec k \cdot \vec \theta}

432: c_{\alpha}(k)\tilde \Sigma^{(O)}_{\alpha}(\vec k),

433: \end{equation}

434: where $\mathbf{\Sigma}^{(O)}$, $\mathbf{\Gamma}$, and $K_N(\vec \theta)$ are

435: the smoothed $\mathbf{e^{(O)}}$, $\gamma$ and $\kappa_n$, respectively,

436: $W(\vec \theta)$ is the smoothing function, and $n_g$ and $N_g$ are,

437: respectively, the surface number density and the number of source galaxies in the field.

438: The noise part of $K_N$ due to the intrinsic ellipticities is then

439: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

440: N(\vec \theta)={1\over n_g}\sum_{i=1}^{N_g}\int d\vec k \tilde W(\vec k)\hbox{ }

441: e^{-i \vec {k}\cdot (\vec \theta-\vec \theta_i)}c_{\alpha}(k)e_{\alpha}^{(S)}(\vec \theta_i),

442: \end{equation}

443: where $\tilde W(\vec k)$ is the Fourier transformation of the smoothing function with the form

444: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

445: \tilde W(\vec k)={1\over (2\pi)^2}\int d\vec \theta \hbox{ }e^{i \vec k \cdot \vec \theta} W(\vec \theta).

446: \end{equation}

447: Following van Waerbeke (2000), the correlation of $N(\vec \theta)$ is calculated by averaging

448: over both the ellipticities and the positions of source galaxies.  Without intrinsic alignments, 

449: the correlation of $N(\vec \theta)$ arises only from the smoothing operations, and

450: by ignoring the non-uniform sampling of source galaxies, we have 

451: (van Waerbeke 2000) 

452: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

453: <N(\vec \theta)N(\vec \theta^{\prime})>={\sigma^2_{\epsilon}\over 2 n_g}(2\pi)^2\int d\vec k 

454: \hbox{ }e^{i \vec {k}\cdot (\vec \theta^{\prime}-\vec \theta)}|\tilde W(\vec k)|^2,

455: \end{equation}

456: where $\sigma_{\epsilon}$ is the intrinsic dispersion of $\mathbf{e}^{(S)}$, and the 

457: factor $(2\pi)^2$ comes in to be in accord with the definition of $\tilde W(\vec k)$ in eq. (15). 

458: 

459: Including the alignment, the operation by averaging over the ellipticities of source galaxies,

460: denoted by ${\it {A}}$ following van Waerbeke (2000), is

461: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

462: {\it {A}} [e^{(S)}_{\alpha}(\vec \theta_i)e^{(S)}_{\beta}(\vec \theta_j)]={\sigma^2_{\epsilon}\over 2}

463: \delta_{\alpha \beta}\delta(\vec \theta_i-\vec \theta_j)+\delta_{\alpha \beta}C_{\alpha \beta}

464: (\vec \theta_i-\vec \theta_j),

465: \end{equation}

466: where $C_{\alpha \beta}(\vec \theta_i-\vec \theta_j)$ is given in eq. (6). 

467: Further by averaging over positions of galaxies, i.e., by applying the

468: operation $(1/S^2)\int d\vec \theta_i d\vec \theta_j$ with $S$ being the area of the 

469: field (van Waerbeke 2000), we get 

470: \begin{eqnarray}\label{w11}

471: <N(\vec \theta)N(\vec \theta^{\prime})>=&&{\sigma^2_{\epsilon}\over 2 n_g}(2\pi)^2\int d\vec k\hbox{ }e^{i \vec {k}\cdot (\vec \theta^{\prime}-\vec \theta)}|\tilde W(\vec k)|^2 \nonumber \\

472: && +(2\pi)^4\int d\vec k\hbox{ }e^{i \vec {k}\cdot (\vec \theta^{\prime}-\vec \theta)}|\tilde W(\vec k)|^2[c_1^2(k)\tilde C_{11}(\vec k)+c_2^2(k)\tilde C_{22}(\vec k)],

473: \end{eqnarray}

474: %\begin{equation}\label{w1}

475: %<N(\vec \theta)N(\vec \theta^{\prime})>={\sigma^2_{\epsilon}\over 2 n_g}(2\pi)^2\int d\vec k

476: %\hbox{ }e^{i \vec {k}\cdot (\vec \theta^{\prime}-\vec \theta)}|W(\vec k)|^2

477: %+(2\pi)^4\int d\vec k\hbox{ }e^{i \vec {k}\cdot (\vec \theta^{\prime}-\vec \theta)}|W(\vec k)|^2

478: %{1\over 2}[{1\over 4}C_{11}(\vec k)+{1\over 4}C_{22}(\vec k)],

479: %\end{equation}

480: where $\tilde C_{11}(\vec k)$ and $\tilde C_{22}(\vec k)$ are the corresponding Fourier

481: transformations of $C_{11}(\theta)$ and $C_{22}(\theta)$ discussed above.

482: Thus the zero-lag noise variance can be written as $\sigma^2_0=\sigma^2_{0ran}+\sigma^2_{0corr}$, 

483: where

484: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

485: \sigma^2_{0ran}={\sigma^2_{\epsilon}\over 2 n_g}(2\pi)^2\int d\vec k

486: \hbox{ }|\tilde W(\vec k)|^2,

487: \end{equation}

488: and 

489: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

490: \sigma^2_{0corr}=(2\pi)^4\int d\vec k\hbox{ }|\tilde W(\vec k)|^2

491: {1\over 2}\bigg [\tilde C_{11}(\vec k)+\tilde C_{22}(\vec k)\bigg ],

492: \end{equation}

493: where the factor $1/2$ is from the integration of $c_1^2(k)=\cos^2(2\phi)$ 

494: [and $c_2^2(k)=\sin^2(2\phi)$] over $\phi$.

495: 

496: Considering Gaussian smoothings with 

497: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

498: W(\theta)={1\over \pi\theta_G^2}\exp\bigg (-{\theta^2\over \theta_G^2}\bigg ),

499: \end{equation}

500: where $\theta_G$ is the angular smoothing scale, we have 

501: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

502: \sigma^2_{0ran}={\sigma^2_{\epsilon}\over 2}{1\over 2\pi\theta_G^2 n_g},

503: \end{equation}

504: and \begin{equation}\label{w1}

505: \sigma^2_{0corr}={1\over 2 \pi}\int d\vec \theta \hbox{ }{1\over 2}\bigg [C_{11}(\theta )

506: +C_{22}(\theta)\bigg ] {1\over \theta_G^2}\exp\bigg (-{\theta^2\over 2\theta_G^2}\bigg ).

507: \end{equation}

508: 

509: In the following analyses, we use eq. (4), (6) and (7) to calculate $C_{11}(\theta)+C_{22}(\theta)$,

510: and further $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ from eq. (23). 

511: %Confronting with observations, we show later in this paper

512: %that this model might overestimate the alignments of background galaxies, 

513: %indicating the existence of mis-alignment between galaxies and their host dark matter halos

514: %(see also Heymans et al. 2004). 

515: 

516: The angular correlations $C_{ij}(\theta)$ depend sensitively on the redshift distribution of 

517: background galaxies. For galaxies distributed in a narrow range around a relatively low redshift, 

518: a large fraction of them are physically close to each other, resulting large $C_{ij}(\theta)$. 

519: We adopt the following functional form to describe the distribution of background galaxies 

520: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

521: p(z)={\beta \over \Gamma [(1+\alpha)/\beta]}\bigg ({z\over z_s}\bigg )^{\alpha}\exp\bigg [-\bigg ({z\over z_s}\bigg )^{\beta}\bigg ],

522: \end{equation}

523: where $\alpha, \beta$ and $z_s$ are parameters that can be determined from survey conditions.

524: We take $\alpha=2$ and $z_s=0.7$. To see the effect of the width of the distribution, 

525: we vary the $\beta$ value with $\beta=1, 1.5, 3, $ and $6$. The larger the $\beta$ value is,

526: the narrower the distribution is, as seen in Figure 1. The corresponding median redshifts

527: for the four distributions are $z_{med}\approx 1.87$, $0.99$, $0.62$ and $0.55$ for 

528: $\beta=1, 1.5, 3, $ and $6$, respectively.

529: 

530: In Figure 2, we show the results of $\sigma^2_{0corr}$. For the intrinsic alignment,

531: we take $A=0.57$, the value from SDSS, in eq. (4) (e.g., Heymans et al. 2006). 

532: %The mass limit is taken to be $M_h=10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$. 

533: The solid, dotted, dashed, 

534: and dash-dotted lines correspond to $\beta=6, 3, 1.5$ and $1$, respectively.

535: For comparison, we also plot $\sigma^2_{0ran}$ (dash-dot-dot-dotted line)

536: with $\sigma_{\epsilon}=0.4$ and $n_g=30\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$. 

537: We see that the result with $\beta=6$ and $z_{med}\sim 0.55$ is an order of 

538: magnitude larger than that with $\beta=1$ and $z_{med}\sim 1.87$,

539: demonstrating clearly the sensitive dependence of $\sigma_{0corr}$ on the

540: redshift distribution of background galaxies. Therefore for tomographic analyses of

541: weak lensing effects with source galaxies distributed in narrow redshift bins, 

542: the effects of intrinsic alignments 

543: can be significant. The angular dependence of $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ is shallower 

544: than $\sigma^2_{0ran}$, and the ratio of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ 

545: increases with the increase of smoothing scales. 

546: 

547: In Table 1, we list $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ for various cases.

548: %At $\theta_G=1 \hbox{ arcmin}$,

549: %the ratio is about $6\%$, $3\%$, $1\%$ and $0.5\%$ for

550: %$\beta=6$, $3$, $1.5$, and $1$, respectively. At $\theta_G=2 \hbox{ arcmin}$,

551: %the corresponding ratios become $10\%$, $5\%$, $2\%$ and $0.8\%$.

552: %Heymans et al. (2006) present an upper limit on $A$ from SDSS observations

553: %with $A\sim 1.29$. 

554: With the upper limit $A=1.29$ from SDSS, the ratio 

555: can reach as high as about $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 20\%$ for $\beta=6$ 

556: at $\theta_G=2 \hbox{ arcmin}$.

557: %For weak lensing cluster surveys, we normally

558: %take $\theta_G \sim 1\hbox{ arcmin}$ (Hamana et al . 2004; Tang and Fan 2005). With a relatively

559: %broad distribution of background galaxies with $\beta \sim 1.5$, $\sigma^2_{0corr}$

560: %is much less than $\sigma^2_{0ran}$. 

561: Notice that $\sigma^2_{0ran}$ and $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ depend differently on the 

562: distribution of source galaxies. While $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ depends mainly 

563: on the form of the redshift distribution, $\sigma^2_{0ran}\propto n_g^{-1}$. 

564: Thus for surveys with higher surface number density of source galaxies 

565: than what we consider here, the ratio $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$

566: can increase considerably. Results expected for some surveys are presented in 

567: Table 2. The survey parameters for COSMOS are taken from Massey et al. (2007).

568: For SNAP, we adopt the parameters used in Semboloni et al. (2007).

569: %For example, for COSMOS survey, the mean redshift is about $<z>=1.2$, and 

570: %$n_g\sim 70\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$ (e.g., Massey et al. 2007). With $\beta=1.5$, we then have $z_s=0.8$. 

571: %The ratios of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ under such a survey condition are

572: %about $2.3\%$ and $3.5\%$ with $A=0.57$ for $\theta_G=1 \hbox{ and } 2\hbox{ arcmin}$, respectively,

573: %in comparison with $1\%$ and $2\%$ for $\beta=1.5$, $z_s=0.7$ and $n_g=30\hbox { arcmin}^{-2}$.

574: %For SNAP wide survey, it is expected $n_g\sim 100\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$ with $<z>=1.2$,

575: %and thus the corresponding values of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ are about $3.3\%$ and $5\%$.

576: %For SNAP deep survey, it is targeted at $n_g\sim 300\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$ with $<z>=1.4$. Then we have $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 8.4\%$ and $12.8\%$ for 

577: %$\theta_G=1 \hbox{ and } 2\hbox{ arcmin}$, respectively (e.g., Semboloni et al. 2007). 

578: For deep surveys with large $n_g$, tomographic analyses with source galaxies distributed 

579: in narrow redshift ranges become possible. For example, with total $n_g\sim 100\hbox { arcmin}^{-2}$

580: as expected from surveys similar to SNAP, the background galaxies can be divided into three 

581: bins each with $n_g\sim 30\hbox { arcmin}^{-2}$.

582: The effect of intrinsic alignments can be significantly stronger within each bin than that

583: in total. If we regard the narrow redshift distribution with $\beta=6$ as one of the 

584: bins, it is seen from Table 1 that the respective values of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ for

585: $\theta_G=1 \hbox{ and } 2\hbox{ arcmin}$ are about $5\%$ and $10\%$ with $A=0.57$,

586: in comparison with $3.3\%$ and $5\%$ expected for the full sample of galaxies from SNAP

587: as seen in Table 2.

588: 

589:   

590: In next section, we show that the number of false peaks in lensing $\kappa$-maps is

591: very sensitive to the ratio of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$.

592: Even a relatively low value of $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ can result a considerable increase of the

593: number of false peaks, and therefore reduce the efficiency of cluster detections significantly.

594: 

595: \section{Statistics of false peaks in $\kappa$-maps resulting from intrinsic ellipticities}

596: 

597: Weak lensing cluster detections associate high peaks in $\kappa$-maps reconstructed from shear

598: measurements with clusters of galaxies. Intrinsic ellipticities of background galaxies

599: can produce false peaks, and therefore affect the efficiency of 

600: cluster detections. It is thus important to understand the statistics of false peaks 

601: thoroughly in order to extract reliable cluster samples from weak lensing surveys.

602: van Waerbeke (2000) studies the number of false peaks assuming no intrinsic alignments 

603: for source galaxies. In this case, the smoothed quantity $N(\vec \theta)$ 

604: defined in eq. (14) is approximately a Gaussian random field because of the

605: central limit theorem. Including the correlations of the intrinsic ellipticities, the 

606: statistics of the noise field $N(\vec \theta)$ can be complicated. 

607: Relating the intrinsic ellipticities linearly with the tidal field predicts Gaussian statistics. 

608: Assuming that they are associated with galaxy spins

609: gives rise to non-Gaussian statistics for the intrinsic ellipticities. On the other hand,

610: $N(\vec \theta)$ is related to the sum of the intrinsic ellipticities of background galaxies

611: in the smoothing window. Since the intrinsic alignments are relatively weak 

612: (on the order of $10^{-6}$ to $10^{-5}$ at $\theta_G\sim 1\hbox{ arcmin}$), 

613: according to the central limit theorem we do not expect a highly non-Gaussian field

614: for $N(\vec \theta)$ if the number of galaxies within the smoothing window is large enough.

615: In our following analyses, we assume the Gaussianity for $N(\vec \theta)$.  

616: Detailed studies on its statistics will be carried out in our future investigations. 

617: 

618: For a two dimensional Gaussian random field $N$, the differential number density of peaks can be 

619: written explicitly in the following form (Bond \& Efstathiou 1987; van Waerbeke 2000)

620: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

621: n_{peak}(\nu)={1\over 2\pi \theta_*^2}\exp(-\nu^2/2){G({\gamma_p}, {\gamma_p}\nu)\over \sqrt{2\pi}},

622: \end{equation}

623: where $\nu=N/\sigma_0$ is the significance of a peak with $N$ being the value of

624: the considered quantity at the peak position, $b=\sqrt{2(1-{\gamma_p}^2)}$, and

625: \begin{eqnarray}\label{w13}

626: G({\gamma_p}, \hat x)&=&{1\over 2}\bigg ({\hat x}^2+{b^2\over 2}-1\bigg )\hbox{ erfc}\bigg (-{\hat x\over b}

627: \bigg )+{{\hat x}b\over 2\sqrt{\pi}}\exp(-{\hat x}^2/b^2) \nonumber\\

628: & &  +{1\over 2(1+b^2)^{1/2}}\exp[-{\hat x}^2/(1+b^2)]\hbox{ erfc}\bigg (-{{\hat x}\over b\sqrt{1+b^2}}\bigg ).

629: \end{eqnarray}

630: It is seen that $n_{peak}(\nu)$ is fully characterized by

631: ${\gamma_p}$ and $\theta_{*}$, which are respectively defined as

632: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

633: \gamma_p={\sigma_1^2\over \sigma_0 \sigma_2} \quad \hbox{ and} \quad \theta_{*}=\sqrt{2}{\sigma_1\over \sigma_2},

634: \end{equation}

635: where 

636: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

637: \sigma_n^2=\int {d\vec k}\hbox{ }k^{2n}<|N(k)|^2>.

638: \end{equation}

639: %In Figure 2, we show $\theta_{*}^2n_{peak}(\nu)$ for $\gamma=\sqrt{2}/2$ (solid), 

640: %$\hbox{} 0.5$ (dotted), $\hbox{} 0.3$ (dashed) and $0.1$ (dash-dotted), respectively. 

641: %Figure 3 shows, correspondingly, the cumulative number density of peaks 

642: %$\theta_{*}^2N_{peak}$ with $N_{peak}=\int_{\nu}n_{peak} d\nu$.

643: %It is seen that $\gamma$ affects the number of peaks significantly. For $\nu=3$,

644: %$\theta_{*}^2N_{peak}$ for $\gamma=\sqrt{2}/2$ is about two times as large as

645: %that for $\gamma=0.5$. For a fixed $\gamma$, $N_{peak}(\nu)$ is very sensitive to 

646: %the value of $\nu$ at $\nu\ge 3$. For $\gamma=\sqrt{2}/2$, $N_{peak}(\nu)$ with 

647: %$\nu=3.3$ is about two times larger than that with $\nu=3.5$.

648: 

649: Considering the noise field $N(\theta)$ defined in eq. (14), 

650: with Gaussian smoothings we have $\gamma_p=\sqrt{2}/2$ 

651: and $\theta_{*}=\theta_G/\sqrt{2}$ in the case without intrinsic alignments (van Waerbeke 2000). 

652: Thus the average cumulative number density of peaks 

653: $N_{peak}(\nu_{ran})=\int_{\nu_{ran}}n_{peak}(\nu')d\nu'$ is 

654: independent of $\sigma_{0ran}$ and scales with the smoothing angle as $\theta_G^{-2}$. 

655: %The results are shown as the solid lines in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively. 

656: In this case, given a survey area and a smoothing angle $\theta_G$, the average 

657: number of false peaks in terms of the significance $\nu_{ran}$ is fixed 

658: regardless of the specific value of $\sigma_{0ran}$. Note that 

659: the existence of false peaks is the result of chance alignments of background 

660: galaxies. Given $\nu_{ran}=N/\sigma_{0ran}$ for a false peak, its

661: strength $N$ is proportional to $\sigma_{0ran}$ which is in turn determined 

662: by $n_g$ and $\sigma_{\epsilon}$. Thus the number of false peaks measured by their

663: strength $N$ depends on $n_g$ and $\sigma_{\epsilon}$. Smaller $n_g$

664: or larger $\sigma_{\epsilon}$ gives rise to larger $\sigma_{0ran}$ and

665: leads to higher probabilities in forming false peaks with large $N$ by 

666: chance alignments. 

667: 

668: Including the intrinsic alignments, both $\gamma_p$ and $\theta_{*}$,

669: and thus the number density of false peaks in terms of the true significance $\nu$, 

670: depend on the correlation level. It is noted from Figure 2 that the level of intrinsic alignments

671: from current observations is low comparing with $\sigma_{0ran}$. Therefore 

672: $\gamma_p$, $\theta_{*}$, and $n_{peak}(\nu)$ change only slightly with respect to the case without

673: intrinsic alignments. 

674: %Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the $\theta_G$-dependence of $\gamma$ and $\theta_*$, respectively. 

675: %The parameters are the same as in Figure 1. The dash-dot-dot-dotted lines are

676: %the results corresponding to $\sigma_{0corr}=0$. The effects of the intrinsic alignments

677: %are clearly seen, and they are scale-dependent. 

678: 

679: %For weak lensing cluster surveys, $\theta_G=1\hbox{ arcmin}$ can be an optimal

680: %choice as it is close to the typical angular scale of a lensing cluster,

681: %and is large enough to suppress the noise level while small enough

682: %to keep the projection effect insignificant (e.g., Hamana et al. 2004; Tang \& Fan 2005). 

683: %In Figure 6, we show the cumulative number density of peaks $N_{peak}(\nu)$ for 

684: %$\beta=1,\hbox{} 1.5, \hbox{}, 3$ and $6$ at $\theta_G=1\hbox{ arcmin}$. 

685: %The dash-dot-dot-dotted line is the result

686: %without intrinsic alignments. Since $\sigma_{0corr}$ is much less than $\sigma_{ran}$

687: %at $\theta_G=1\hbox{ arcmin}$, the differences in $N_{peak}(\nu)$ resulting 

688: %from $\sigma_{0corr}$ are small. 

689: 

690: The number of false peaks discussed above is given

691: in terms of the true significance $\nu=N/\sigma_0$, i.e.,

692: the peak height is measured relative to the full noise variance 

693: $\sigma_0=\sqrt{\sigma^2_{0ran}+\sigma^2_{0corr}}$ including 

694: $\sigma_{0corr}$.  Observationally however, it is difficult to obtain

695: $\sigma_{0corr}$,  and thus usually only $\sigma_{0ran}$ is estimated and 

696: used in measuring the significance of a peak. The true significance of the peak

697: corresponding to the observed significance $\nu_{ran}=N/\sigma_{0ran}$

698: is then $\nu=\nu_{ran}/(1+\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran})^{1/2}$.

699: Given a threshold on $\nu_{ran}$, the average number of peaks is 

700: $N_{peak}(\nu_{ran})\propto \int_{\nu} n_{peak}(\nu^{'}) d\nu^{'}$.  

701: Because $\nu<\nu_{ran}$ for non-zero $\sigma_{0corr}$, 

702: $N_{peak}$ increases with the increase of $\sigma_{0corr}$.

703: 

704: In Figure 3, we show $N_{peak}-N^{ran}_{peak}$, the number of false peaks

705: resulting from intrinsic alignments, with respect to the detection threshold $\nu_{ran}$,

706: where $N_{peak}$ and $N^{ran}_{peak}$ are the cumulative numbers of false peaks 

707: in $1 \hbox{ deg}^{2}$ with and without intrinsic alignments. 

708: %$\int_{\nu_{ran}}n_{peak}\hbox{}d\nu$, with and without intrinsic alignments in $1 \hbox{ deg}^{2}$.

709: For comparison, we also plot $N^{ran}_{peak}$ (thick lines) in each panel. 

710: The left and right panels are respectively for $\theta_G=1\hbox{ arcmin}$ and

711: $\theta_G=2\hbox{ arcmin}$. The upper panels are for $A=0.57$, and

712: the lower panels are for $A=1.29$. The thin solid, dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted lines

713: in each panel are for $\beta=6$, $3$, $1.5$ and $1$, respectively.

714: It is seen that $N_{peak}-N^{ran}_{peak}$ can be comparable to $N^{ran}_{peak}$.

715: For $\theta_G=1\hbox { arcmin}$, $N^{ran}_{peak}\sim 2$, $0.3$, $0.04$, and $0.004$

716: at $\nu_{ran}=3.5$, $4$, $4.5$ and $5$, respectively. The corresponding 

717: $N_{peak}-N^{ran}_{peak}$ are $0.25$, $0.06$, $0.013$, and $0.0015$ for

718: $\beta=1.5$ and $A=1.29$. For larger $\beta$, the numbers are larger and

719: $N_{peak}-N^{ran}_{peak}>N^{ran}_{peak}$ when $\nu_{ran}>3.7$ and $4.5$ for

720: $\beta=6$ and $3$, respectively. For $\theta_G=2\hbox{ arcmin}$, 

721: $N_{peak}-N^{ran}_{peak}>N^{ran}_{peak}$ when $\nu_{ran}>3$, $3.8$ and

722: $5.3$ for $\beta=6$, $3$ and $1.5$, respectively. Therefore the

723: existence of intrinsic alignments can result significant number of 

724: extra false peaks in lensing convergence maps. 

725: 

726: In Figure 4, we show the dependence of the ratio $r_{peak}=N_{peak}/N^{ran}_{peak}$

727: on the level of intrinsic alignments represented by the amplitude $A$ for 

728: $\theta_G=1\hbox{ arcmin}$.

729: The $\beta$ value in each panel is written out explicitly. The 

730: solid, dotted, dashed and dash-dotted lines are respectively for $\nu_{ran}=5$, $4.5$,

731: $4$ and $3.5$. For $\beta=1.5$ and $A=1.29$, we have $r_{peak}\sim 1.36$, 

732: $1.27$, $1.2$ and $1.14$ for $\nu_{ran}=5$, $4.5$, $4$ and $3.5$, respectively.

733: With larger smoothing scales, the relative effect of intrinsic alignments is higher.

734: For $\theta_G=2\hbox{ arcmin}$, the corresponding

735: ratios change to $1.6$, $1.4$, $1.3$ and $1.2$. For $\beta=6$, the ratios for $\nu_{ran}=5$ reach

736: as high as $3.8$ and $7.6$ for $\theta_G=1$ and $2\hbox{ arcmin}$, respectively.

737: 

738: From eqs. (25) and (26), it can be shown that $N_{peak}$ depends largely  

739: on the detection threshold with $N_{peak}\propto \nu\exp(-\nu^2/2)$ at $\nu>3$ 

740: (e.g., van Waerbeke 2000). Given a detection threshold on $\nu_{ran}$, the 

741: corresponding threshold for the true significance is

742: $\nu=\nu_{ran}/(1+\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran})^{1/2}$, which decreases with 

743: the increase of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$.

744: Thus $r_{peak}$ is largely determined by the ratio $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$. 

745: In Figure 5, we show $r_{peak}$ with

746: respect to $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ for $\theta_G=1$ (upper panel) and $2\hbox{ arcmin}$

747: (lower panel). The four sets of lines from top to bottom in each panel correspond 

748: respectively to the threshold $\nu_{ran}=5$, $4.5$, $4$ and $3.5$. Note that each set contains

749: four lines with $\beta=6$, $3$, $1.5$, and $1$, respectively. 

750: %Thus we indeed see that $r_{peak}$ depends almost solely on $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$. 

751: With $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 5\%$, the values of $r_{peak}$ are about 

752: $1.7$, $1.55$, $1.4$ and $1.3$ for $\nu_{ran}=5$, $4.5$, $4$ and $3.5$. For

753: $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 10\%$, the corresponding $r_{peak}$ are 

754: $2.9$, $2.3$, $1.9$ and $1.6$. A specific value of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$

755: depends on the strength of the intrinsic alignment, the surface number density and 

756: the redshift distribution of source galaxies, and $\sigma_{\epsilon}$.

757: The dotted vertical lines from left to right in each panel

758: show the corresponding values of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ for

759: $\beta=1$, $1.5$, $3$ and $6$, where we take $A=1.29$, $\sigma_{\epsilon}=0.4$,

760: and $n_g=30\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$. It should be noted that $n_g$ usually varies with the 

761: redshift distribution of source galaxies. Surveys that can reach high redshifts typically

762: have large $n_g$. Thus our estimates on $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$

763: with fixed $n_g=30\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$ may overestimate the ratio for $\beta=6$. 

764: On the other hand, for deep surveys with large $n_g$ (e.g., $n_g\sim 100$ for SNAP, and 

765: $n_g\sim 300$ for SNAP Deep), we can divide the source galaxies into different bins 

766: with $n_g\sim 30 \hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$ in each bin. In this case, 

767: the narrow distribution with $\beta=6$ can be one of these bins, and our

768: above estimate on $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ 

769: with $n_g=30\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$ can be a representative value for galaxies within

770: the bin.  

771:   

772: For weak lensing cluster surveys, the efficiency 

773: measures how efficient we can find true clusters from lensing maps. Assuming the

774: NFW profile (Navarro, Frenk and White 1996) for the mass distribution of clusters 

775: of galaxies, it is found

776: that the number of peaks resulting from true clusters in lensing $\kappa$-maps 

777: is about $6\hbox{ deg}^{-2}$, and $4\hbox{ deg}^{-2}$ for significance larger than $3.5$ and $4$, 

778: respectively, where $\sigma_{\epsilon}=0.4$, $n_g=30\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$ and 

779: $\theta_G=1\hbox{ arcmin}$ are used (Hamana et al. 2004). As we show previously, 

780: the corresponding $N^{ran}_{peak}$ are about $2$ and $0.3$. Then a simple estimate

781: gives the efficiency about $75\%$ and $93\%$ for the two detection thresholds if there are

782: no intrinsic alignments. With $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 10\%$, 

783: the corresponding efficiencies drop to $65\%$ and $87\%$. Note that we only

784: consider the contamination from false peaks when estimating the above efficiencies. The

785: existence of intrinsic ellipticities and alignments not only results false peaks

786: but also affects the heights of true peaks, which can further decrease the efficiency 

787: of weak lensing cluster detections considerably (e.g., Hamana et al. 2004). 

788: 

789: Because weak lensing effects arise from the gravitational influence of the matter distribution,

790: it is expected that dark clumps without luminous counterparts can be discovered

791: from lensing observations. The existence of massive dark clumps would question the current theory of

792: structure formation seriously. There have been such candidates reported in literature.

793: Erben et al. (2000) present CFHT weak lensing results around the galaxy cluster Abell 1942. 

794: They find a high peak [$\sim 5\sigma$ in the aperture-mass measurement (Schneider 1996)] 

795: without associated galaxy overdensities at the location about $7'$ south 

796: of the main cluster. Faint X-ray emissions from the nearby region of the peak

797: are detected by ROSAT, but they may not be related to the lensing peak signal. 

798: With HST lensing observations in this field, 

799: Linden et al. (2006) also find a peak at a place consistent with that given by 

800: Erben et al. (2000), but with a much lower significance $\sim 2.9\sigma$. 

801: Further, they divide the source galaxies into three magnitude bins and perform

802: lensing analyses for each of them. For the bright bin, 

803: which contains most of the source galaxies used in Erben et al. (2000), they find 

804: a $1.9\sigma$ peak with a smoothing scale $120''$ . For the faint bin,

805: a $3.3\sigma$ peak is detected. There is no lensing detection

806: from the medium bin, which is unexpected if there is a foreground dark clump. 

807: A spatial concentration of galaxies in the medium bin is observed, which could act as the 

808: lens for galaxies in the faint bin but not for those in the bright bin. 

809: The lack of lensing detections in the medium bin and the low significance of the peak 

810: from HST observations raise questions on the lensing origin of the peak. It is likely that

811: the peak is a statistical fluke (Linden et al. 2006). On the other hand,

812: Erben et al. (2000) estimate the probability that their detected peak is a false one from

813: chance alignments of background galaxies.

814: In order to apply the results given by van Waerbeke (2000), they perform a Gaussian smoothing 

815: with $\theta_G\approx 0.5'$ to the $\kappa$ field, and find that the considered peak 

816: has a height of $\nu_{ran}\sim 4.5\sigma$. The probability to have such a high peak from

817: chance alignments is very low (Erben et al. 2000). 

818: 

819: Our analyses show that the existence of intrinsic alignments can increase

820: the chance for the appearance of false peaks in a given

821: area depending on the ratio of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$. 

822: In Table 3, we list the probabilities that the detected 'dark clumps' are false peaks 

823: for different observations. The probability is calculated from the Poisson statistics 

824: with 

825: \begin{equation}\label{w1}

826: p_n={e^{-N_{peak}}N_{peak}^{n}\over n!},

827: \end{equation}

828: where $p_n$ is the probability to have $n$ false peaks in a field, and $N_{peak}$ is the 

829: average number of false peaks expected in the field. 

830: %

831: %we find that within the field of $14'\times 14'$ (Erben et al. 2000), the average number 

832: %of false peaks with significance higher than $4.5$ 

833: %at $\theta_G=0.5'$ is about $0.009$ if there is no intrinsic alignment for source galaxies.

834: For the observation of Erben et al. (2000), we estimate $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 1.3\%$

835: (with $A=1.29$) for $\theta_G=0.5\hbox{ arcmin}$. With this level of intrinsic alignment,

836: the probability to find one $\nu_{ran}=4.5$ false peak in the field of $14'\times 14'$ increases 

837: only slightly from $0.9\%$ to $1\%$. 

838: %Thus the probability to have one such a peak in the field is $\sim 0.9\%$. Taking into 

839: %$account possible intrinsic alignments, we have $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 1.3\%$

840: %with $A=1.29$, which is low at this angular scale. Thus the above probability does not increase much. 

841: On the other hand, with the noise level comparable to that of Erben et al. (2000), 

842: the average surface number density of peaks with $\nu_{ran}\ge 4.5$

843: resulting from the lensing effects of true mass concentrations is 

844: about $3\hbox{ deg}^{-2}$ for $\theta_G=0.5\hbox{ arcmin}$ (Hamana et al. 2004). 

845: %If we scale this number density up for the case of $\theta_G=0.5 

846: %\hbox{ arcmin}$ by simply multiplying 

847: %a number $4$, then the average number of true peaks expected 

848: Then the average number of true peaks in the field of $14'\times 14'$ is about $0.15$, and

849: the probability to have one true peak in this field is $\sim 13\%$.

850: Thus the $\nu_{ran}=4.5$ peak found by Erben et al. 

851: (2000) is much more likely to be associated with a true mass clump

852: than being a false peak.  However the analyses on HST data by Linden et al. (2006) give 

853: $\nu_{ran}\sim 3$ for the peak. The average number of 

854: false peaks expected in the field of $14'\times 14'$ with $\nu_{ran}\ge 3$ is about $1.7$ with

855: $\sigma^2_{0corr}=0$. For source galaxies in Linden et al. (2006), we estimate 

856: $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 5\%$ with $A=1.29$.

857: Then the average number of false peaks increases to $\sim 2$, and the 

858: corresponding probability $p(corr)\sim 27\%$.

859: %in contrast to $2$ of the number of true peaks (e.g., Hamana et al. 2004). 

860: In this case, it is quite possible that the observed peak is a false one.

861: The reason for the difference between the peak heights from 

862: CFHT and HST is unclear (Linden et al. 2006), and so is the conclusion on the origin of the peak. 

863: %Tomographic lensing analyses with available photometric 

864: %redshifts for source galaxies will be important in distinguishing the two (e.g., Hennawi \& 

865: %Spergel 2005). 

866: It is likely that the peak is associated with a small mass clump

867: and its height is enhanced by the chance alignment of background galaxies (Linden et al. 2006). 

868: 

869: Massey et al. (2007) present the COSMOS $2\hbox{ deg}^2$ lensing analysis. They 

870: notice the existence of two high peaks without luminous counterparts 

871: near the main cluster. The $\kappa$ field in Massey et al. (2007) is reconstructed using 

872: the wavelet method and its noise properties are complicated 

873: (e.g., Starck, Pires, \& Refregier 2006). The 

874: significances of the peaks are not clearly given in Massey et al. (2007). 

875: Thus in Table 3, we include the probabilities for different significances.

876: %How likely are these false ones from chance alignments?  The average number 

877: %of false peaks with $\theta_G=1\hbox{ arcmin}$ in $2\hbox{ deg}^2$ is  

878: %$0.6$, $0.08$ and $0.008$ with significance higher than $4$, $4.5$ and $5$, respectively,

879: %without considering intrinsic alignments. Including the intrinsic alignments with $A=1.29$, 

880: When calculating $p(corr)$, we use $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 5\%$ estimated 

881: for the redshift distribution of source galaxies with $\alpha=2$, $\beta=1.5$ and $z_s=0.8$. 

882: %Then the above numbers of peaks increase to $0.84$, $0.12$ and $0.014$. The probabilities for finding

883: %two peaks with $\nu_{ran}>4$, $4.5$, and $5$ in $2\hbox{ deg}^2$ are then about

884: %$0.15$, $0.006$ and $0.0001$, in comparison with $0.1$, $0.003$, and $0.00003$ without

885: %intrinsic alignments. 

886: It is seen that with the intrinsic alignments, the probability that the two peaks 

887: are false ones is tripled for $\nu_{ran}>5$.  

888: It is noted that our results are for Gaussian smoothings, and therefore 

889: cannot be used directly to discuss how likely the peaks 

890: found by Massey et al. (2007) are false ones. 

891: On the other hand, the COSMOS data can be readily analyzed with the 

892: method of Kaiser \& Squires (1993) with Gaussian smoothings. Then

893: our studies presented here can be directly applicable.

894:   

895: %and differences between $N_{peak}(\nu_{ran})$ for different $\beta$,

896: %and thus different $\sigma_{0corr}$, are very significant for large $\nu_{ran}$. 

897: %This is because for a fixed value of $\nu_{ran}$, 

898: %$\nu=N/\sigma_{0}=N/(\sigma^2_{0ran}+\sigma^2_{0corr})^{1/2}$ is smaller 

899: %for larger $\sigma_{0corr}$. Furthermore, the peak number $N_{peak}(\nu)$ is very 

900: %sensitive to $\nu$ at $\nu\ge 3$. Therefore $N_{peak}(\nu_{ran})$ increases dramatically

901: %with the increase of $\sigma_{0corr}$. To demonstrate the results more clearly,

902: %in Figure 8 we plot the ratio of $N_{peak}(\nu_{ran})$ for different $\beta$ (and thus different

903: %$\sigma_{0corr}$) values to $N_{peak}$ with $\sigma_{0corr}=0$. At $\nu_{ran}=3.5$,

904: %the ratio $r_{peak}=1.3, \hbox{}1.7, \hbox{}2.6$ and $3.8$ for $\beta=1, \hbox{}1.5,\hbox{}3$

905: %and $6$, respectively. The corresponding $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ are 

906: %$3.5\times 10^{-5}$, $4.2\times 10^{-5}$, $1\times 10^{-4}$ and $1.5\times 10^{-4}$.

907: %For $\beta=1.5$, which is an appropriate value for many lensing surveys,

908: %we have $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 0.1$ and $r_{peak}=1.7$. Clusters of galaxies

909: %are expected to be associated with high peaks in lensing $\kappa$-maps. Thus the dramatic increase of

910: %the number of false peaks with $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ affects the efficiency of weak lensing 

911: %cluster surveys considerably. For a detection threshold

912: %$\nu_{ran}=3.5$, if the efficiency estimated by assuming zero-alignment is 

913: %about $50\%$, it drops to $37\%$ with only a $10\%$ extra contribution 

914: %from $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ to $\sigma^2_{0}$, i.e., $\sigma^2_{0corr}=0.1\sigma^2_{0ran}$.

915: 

916: 

917: \section{Constraints on intrinsic alignments from CFHTLS Deep survey} 

918: 

919: Because of its sensitive dependence on intrinsic

920: alignments, the number of false peaks can be used to probe the strength of

921: the intrinsic alignments of source galaxies

922: if one can observationally distinguish false and true peaks.

923: In this section, we analyze the constraints on $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ from the

924: results of the CFHTLS Deep survey (Gavazzi \& Soucail 2007). 

925: 

926: The CFHTLS Deep survey shares the same data with the Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS).

927: It contains four independent fields and includes data from five bands $(g^{\prime},

928: r^{\prime},i^{\prime},z^{\prime},u^{*})$. The shear measurements are done using 

929: the $i^{\prime}$ band images with magnitude in the range $22<i^{\prime}<26$. The seeing is

930: $\sim 0.9^{\prime\prime}$. The total working area for weak lensing analysis

931: is $3.61\hbox{ deg}^2$. The photometric redshift

932: is estimated for each source galaxy with the multi-band observational data. The 

933: redshift distribution for a subsample of source galaxies with reliable photo-z

934: measurements is presented in Figure 3 of Gavazzi \& Soucail (2007),

935: which will be used in our following analysis. The convergence $\kappa$-map is constructed

936: from the inferred shear $\gamma$ with the technique developed by Kaiser and Squires (1993). 

937: The shear and consequently the $\kappa$ fields are smoothed with a Gaussian window function

938: with $\theta_G=1\hbox{ arcmin}$. The variance of noise in the smoothed $\kappa$ field from

939: randomly oriented background galaxies is estimated to be $\sigma_{0ran}=0.0196, 0.0225, 

940: 0.0202$, and $0.0221$ for the four fields, respectively (Gavazzi \& Soucail 2007).

941: The signal-to-noise ratio $\nu$ is defined as $\nu_{ran}=\kappa/\sigma_{0ran}$. From the

942: $\kappa$-maps of the four fields, Gavazzi and Soucail (2007) detect $\sim 46$ peaks

943: with $\nu_{ran}>3$, $14$ peaks with $\nu_{ran}>3.5$ and $5$ peaks with $\nu_{ran}>4$. 

944: Detailed studies are done for the $14$ peaks with $\nu_{ran}>3.5$. 

945: With the help of photometric redshift measurements, X-ray observations and the 

946: lensing tomographic analysis, they claim that there are $9$ secure cluster detections 

947: among the $14$ peaks. The rest $5$ are likely false peaks. 

948: In our study here, we regard these $5$ peaks as

949: false ones resulting from the intrinsic ellipticities of background galaxies, 

950: and constrain the level of intrinsic alignments based on our analysis

951: presented in the previous section. It is worth mentioning that the statistics

952: based on only $5$ peaks is poor, and therefore our analysis mainly aims at demonstrating

953: the feasibility in extracting the information of the intrinsic alignments of background

954: galaxies from the number of false peaks. Also some of the five peaks may result from 

955: dark clumps without luminous counterparts. Larger weak lensing cluster surveys 

956: with more reliable tomographic analyses will provide statistically meaningful results on 

957: the intrinsic alignments.

958: 

959: We model the redshift distribution shown in Gavazzi \& Soucail (2007) as

960: \begin{equation}\label{w12}

961: p(z)\propto \bigg ( {z\over z_s}\bigg )^2 \exp \bigg [-\bigg ({z\over z_s}\bigg )^2\bigg ]

962: +0.07\exp\bigg [-{(z-2.8)^2\over 0.6^2}\bigg ],

963: \end{equation}

964: where $z_s$ is taken to be $0.8$. The second term is added to describe the low

965: bump at $z\sim 3$ seen in the redshift distribution of the source galaxies of CFHTLS Deep

966: (Gavazzi \& Soucail 2007). This term does not affect much our results because of its

967: low amplitude. We calculate $\sigma_{0corr}$ from eq.(23) with $\theta_G=1\hbox{ arcmin}$,

968: where $C_{11}$ and $C_{22}$ are computed from eqs. (4)-(7).

969: 

970: In Figure 6, we show the dependence on $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ of the expected

971: number of false peaks detected in $3.61\hbox{ deg}^2$. 

972: The solid line is for the average number of false peaks.

973: The upper and lower dashed lines show the $-1\sigma$ and $-2\sigma$ Poisson deviations from the 

974: mean, i.e., $N_{peak}-\sqrt{N_{peak}}$ and $N_{peak}-2\sqrt{N_{peak}}$, respectively.

975: The horizontal dash-dotted line is located at $N_{peak}=5$. The vertical dotted lines

976: indicate the values of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ for the source galaxies of

977: CFHTLS Deep with $A=0.57$ and $A=1.29$, from left to right, respectively. 

978: We see that $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ constraints give $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}<4\%$

979: and $<14\%$. With $\sigma^2_{0ran}=0.0004$, we have $\sigma^2_{0corr}<1.6\times 10^{-5}$

980: and $\sigma^2_{0corr}< 5.6\times 10^{-5}$ for $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ constraints. 

981: From eq. (23), it is seen that $2\sigma^2_{0corr}$ corresponds

982: to the intrinsic alignment $C_{11}+C_{22}$ smoothed over the angular

983: scale $\theta_G$. Thus we have the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ constraints on 

984: $C_{11}+C_{22}$ for $\theta_G=1\hbox{ arcmin}$ to be $<3.2\times 10^{-5}$ and $<1.1\times 10^{-4}$.

985: The corresponding limits on the amplitude of the intrinsic alignments

986: $A$ are $A<2.9$ and $A<10$. The results are fully consistent with that from SDSS observations

987: with $A<1.29$. 

988: 

989: 

990: %In Figure 10, we show the 

991: %corresponding dependence on $M_h$, the lower mass limit of halos included in the analysis [see

992: %eqs. (6) and (7)]. It is found that within $1\sigma$ range, the quantity $\sigma_{0corr}$

993: %is limited to $\sigma^2_{0corr}<2\times 10^{-5}$. The $2\sigma$ constraint is

994: %$\sigma^2_{0corr}< 5\times 10^{-5}$. The constraints on $M_h$

995: %are correspondingly $M_h<4\times 10^{11}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ ($1\sigma$) and

996: %$M_h< 2.5\times 10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ ($2\sigma$). Although the statistics is

997: %poor, we may already see the tendency that the $1\sigma$ constraint on $M_h$ appears lower than

998: %expected (around $10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$). 

999: 

1000: Schirmer et al. (2007) analyze a total of $\sim 20\hbox{ deg}^{2}$ data collected

1001: from different observations with different observational depth. 

1002: They present a sample of shear-selected clusters containing total

1003: $158$ candidates identified by two types of statistics.  

1004: Using only $S$-statistics which is similar to the aperture mass statistics but with 

1005: different filtering functions, they find $91$ peaks with significance being higher than $4$. 

1006: Among them, there are $48$ dark ones without obvious optical counterparts. It is found that

1007: the fraction of dark peaks is relatively high in shallow surveys with 

1008: low surface number density of source galaxies. This indicates that a significant 

1009: number of dark peaks could be false ones resulting from intrinsic ellipticities. 

1010: Since their filtering functions are complicated with different filtering scales, 

1011: we cannot do quantitative analyses on the constraints on intrinsic alignments with 

1012: these dark peaks. However, we may give some rough estimates. 

1013: In Schirmer et al. (2007), the filtering scales used in peak identifications

1014: range from $1.6^{'}$ to $19.8^{'}$ with most of them being larger than $2^{'}$. 

1015: Comparing the functional form of the Gaussian smoothing with the filtering functions

1016: used in Schirmer et al. (2007), their filtering should have the effects corresponding to

1017: Gaussian smoothings with $\theta_G\ge 1^{'}$.

1018: Thus we use the results of $\theta_G=1^{'}$ for a conservative discussion.

1019: Without intrinsic alignments, our results show that

1020: the average number of false peaks in $20\hbox{ deg}^{2}$ with $\nu_{ran}\ge 4$ is

1021: about $6$. The existence of intrinsic alignments enhances the average number of false peaks.

1022: If the $48$ dark peaks are all false ones and the number is $+1\sigma$ from the average number

1023: of false peaks, we need the average number to be $N_{peak}\sim 42$. Then we have to have 

1024: $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 35\%$ to get such a high number of false peaks.

1025: For the redshift distribution of source galaxies, Schirmer et al. (2007) 

1026: give $\alpha=2$, $\beta=1.5$ and $z_s=0.4$ for shallow surveys. 

1027: The surface number density is $n_g\sim 12\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$, and $\sigma_{\epsilon}\sim 0.48$

1028: (Schirmer et al. 2007). We then estimate $\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 0.0015$.

1029: Thus the ratio $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 35\%$ requires the parameter $A$ to be $A\sim 32$,

1030: which is much higher than the constraint $A\le 1.29$ from SDSS.  

1031: %$\sigma^2_{0corr}\sim 0.00002$ from intrinsic alignments with $A=1.29$.

1032: %Thus the ratio $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 1.4\%$. With this ratio, 

1033: %the average number of false peaks with $\nu_{ran}\ge 4$ increases to $\sim 7$, which is 

1034: %much less than the number of dark peaks found by Schirmer et al. (2007). 

1035: Therefore it is very unlikely that the $48$ dark peaks are all false ones from 

1036: intrinsic ellipticities of background galaxies. 

1037: As we discussed previously and also in Schirmer et al. (2007),

1038: the joint effects of small mass clumps and the intrinsic ellipticities could contribute

1039: significantly to the number of dark peaks with high significance.

1040: It should be pointed out that

1041: the functional form and the scale of the filtering function adopted by Schirmer et al. (2007) 

1042: are optimized to detect clusters with NFW density profiles. With Gaussian smoothings,

1043: the number of peaks and their properties may change quantitatively. It is therefore

1044: desirable to analyze the observations with Gaussian smoothings so that we can perform detailed

1045: analyses on the statistics of false peaks. On the other hand, it is also

1046: worthwhile investigating the noise properties and the associated statistics of false peaks 

1047: under different smoothing schemes. As the catalog of Schirmer et al. (2007) is the

1048: largest one so far, from many aspects careful observational and theoretical 

1049: studies on these dark peaks are highly valuable. 

1050: %Then from many

1051: %aspects, careful investigations on the nature of the dark peaks contained in this catalog, 

1052: %the largest one so far, are highly desirable. For example, if detailed analyses 

1053: %give $\sim 30\%$ ($14$ out of $48$) of the dark peaks 

1054: %being false ones from intrinsic ellipticities of background galaxies, we have the constraint

1055: %on $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 0.13\pm 0.04(0.08)$ [$1(2)\sigma$]. The corresponding

1056: %constraint on $A$ would be $A\sim 12\pm 3(6)$, which is still much larger than $A=1.29$

1057: %from SDSS (Heymans et al. 2006). 

1058: 

1059: Future surveys with larger areas will result many more peaks. If a large number of false peaks

1060: from intrinsic ellipticities can be securely identified, we can put tight

1061: constraints on the level of intrinsic alignments. Considering Poisson fluctuations, we 

1062: can estimate, as follows, how well the quantity $x=\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ can be constrained

1063: from $N$ false peaks with $\nu_{ran}\ge \nu_0$. With the average cumulative number of peaks

1064: $N_{peak}\propto \nu \exp(-\nu^2/2)$ for $\nu\ge 3$, where $\nu$ is the true significance 

1065: (e.g., van Waerbeke 2000), we have, for the

1066: central value of $x$, denoted by $x_c$,

1067: \begin{equation}

1068: N_{ran}{(\nu_0/\sqrt{1+x_c})\exp[ -\nu_0^2/ 2/(1+x_c)]\over 

1069: \nu_0\exp[ -\nu_0^2/ 2]}={N_{ran}\over \sqrt{1+x_c}}\exp\bigg [ {\nu_0^2 x_c\over 2(1+x_c)}\bigg ]=N,

1070: \end{equation}

1071: where $N_{ran}$ is the average number of false peaks expected in the field 

1072: without considering intrinsic alignments.

1073: The $\pm 1\sigma$ constraints on $x$ can then be obtained by

1074: \begin{equation}

1075: {N_{ran}\over \sqrt{1+x_c + \delta x}}\exp\bigg [ {\nu_0^2 (x_c + \delta x)\over 2(1+x_c + \delta x)}\bigg ]-

1076: \sqrt{{N_{ran}\over \sqrt{1+x_c + \delta x}}\exp\bigg [ {\nu_0^2 (x_c + \delta x)\over 2(1+x_c + \delta x)}\bigg ]}=N,

1077: \end{equation}

1078: and

1079: \begin{equation}

1080: {N_{ran}\over \sqrt{1+x_c - \delta x}}\exp\bigg [ {\nu_0^2 (x_c - \delta x)\over 2(1+x_c - \delta x)}\bigg ]+

1081: \sqrt{{N_{ran}\over \sqrt{1+x_c - \delta x}}\exp\bigg [ {\nu_0^2 (x_c - \delta x)\over 2(1+x_c - \delta x)}\bigg ]}=N.

1082: \end{equation}

1083: With $\delta x<<1$, we have

1084: \begin{equation}

1085: \delta x\approx {1\over \nu_0^2/2-1/2}{\sqrt{N}\over N}{1\over 1+0.5/\sqrt{N}}.

1086: \end{equation}

1087: For instance, with $N=50$ and $\nu_0=4$, we have $\delta x\sim 1.8\%$, i.e.,  

1088: the quantity $x$ can be constrained to the level of $x_c\pm 1.8\%$ ($1\sigma$).

1089: From $\delta x$ to $\delta (\sigma^2_{0corr})$, it depends on $\sigma^2_{0ran}$, and thus 

1090: on $n_g$ and $\sigma_{\epsilon}$. Further from the constraint on $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ to 

1091: the constraint on $A$, we need the redshift distribution of background galaxies.

1092: With $n_g=30\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$, $\sigma_{\epsilon}=0.4$, $\alpha=2$, $\beta=1.5$, 

1093: and $z_s=0.7$, we have $\delta (\sigma^2_{0corr})\sim 7\times 10^{-6}$, and

1094: $\delta (A)\sim 0.9$. From the relation between $2\sigma^2_{0corr}$ and 

1095: the intrinsic alignment $C_{11}+C_{22}$ smoothed over the angular

1096: scale $\theta_G$, the limit $\delta (\sigma^2_{0corr})\sim 7\times 10^{-6}$ leads to

1097: $\delta (C_{11}+C_{22})\sim 1.4\times 10^{-5}$ over $\theta_G=1^{'}$.

1098: 

1099: %The sensitivity of $N_{peak}$ on $\sigma_{0corr}$

1100: %is clearly seen in this analysis. With only a few false peaks, we can probe $\sigma_{0corr}$

1101: %at the level of $\delta (\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran})\le 5\%$i, and this number drops to 

1102: %$\sim 2\%$ with a few tens of false peaks. With $\sigma^2_{0ran}\sin 4\times 10^{4}$,

1103: %they correspond to $\delta (C_{11}+C_{22})\le 4\times 10^{-5}$ and $1.4\times 10^{-5}$.

1104:  

1105: 

1106: Intrinsic alignments of galaxies have been estimated from nearby surveys SuperCOSMOS

1107: (Brown et al. 2002) and SDSS (Mandelbaum et al. 2006) assuming negligible lensing effects.

1108: Extrapolating their results to redshifts $z\sim 1$ appropriate for most lensing surveys

1109: suffers many uncertainties (Brown et al. 2002; Mandelbaum et al. 2006). Heymans et al. (2004)

1110: estimated the intrinsic alignments in the COMBO-17 survey ($z\sim 0.6$) from close

1111: pairs of background galaxies. Their error bar at $\sim 1\hbox{ arcmin}$ is about 

1112: $a\hbox{ } few \times 10^{-4}$. Our above analysis based on only $5$ false peaks already gives rise 

1113: to a tighter constraint on the order of $\delta (C_{11}+C_{22})\sim 4\times 10^{-5}$, 

1114: demonstrating the great potential of our proposed method.  

1115: 

1116: \section{Discussion}

1117: 

1118: In this paper, we investigate the effect of the intrinsic alignments of background galaxies

1119: on weak lensing detections of mass concentrations. 

1120: Focusing on the convergence $\kappa$-maps, 

1121: we analyze the number of false peaks due to the

1122: intrinsic ellipticities of background galaxies taking into account their intrinsic alignments.  

1123: Under the assumption of Gaussianity for the noise field, the number of false peaks 

1124: in $\kappa$ maps depends on two characteristic parameters $\gamma_p$ and $\theta_*$,

1125: which are in turn determined by the two-point correlations of the field. Without 

1126: intrinsic alignments, $\gamma_p=\sqrt{2}/2$ and $\theta_*=(\sqrt{2}/2)\theta_G$ for 

1127: a Gaussian window. Thus the number of false peaks

1128: in terms of $\nu_{ran}=N /\sigma_{0ran}$ does not depend on $\sigma_{0ran}$ 

1129: (Note that given $\nu_{ran}$, the strength of a peak $N$ depends on $\sigma_{0ran}$).

1130: With the intrinsic alignments, however, both $\gamma_p$ and $\theta_*$ change with

1131: $\sigma_{0corr}$. More importantly, the full noise variance

1132: $\sigma^2_{0}=\sigma^2_{0ran}+\sigma^2_{0corr}$ cannot be measured easily in real

1133: observations. Only the quantity $\sigma^2_{0ran}$ can be estimated. Therefore

1134: observationally defined signal-to-noise ratio is often with respect to $\sigma_{0ran}$ 

1135: rather than to the true noise variance $\sigma_{0}$. For a given 

1136: $\nu_{ran}$, the true signal-to-noise ratio $\nu$ 

1137: decreases with the increase of $\sigma_{0corr}$. Because $N_{peak}(\nu)$ drops steeply at 

1138: large $\nu$, the cumulative number of false peaks given a threshold on $\nu_{ran}$ increases

1139: sensitively as $\sigma_{0corr}$ increases. This can result a large reduction of the efficiency 

1140: of weak lensing cluster detections. If a $75\%$ efficiency is expected 

1141: in the case $\sigma_{0corr}=0$ for a survey at a detection threshold $\nu_{ran}=3.5$, 

1142: this number goes down to $65\%$ with $\sigma^2_{0corr}\approx 0.1\sigma^2_{0ran}$.

1143: The increase of the number of false peaks with intrinsic alignments can also affect

1144: the statistical likelihood in judging whether a dark peak truly corresponds to a dark clump

1145: or is a false one from intrinsic ellipticities of source galaxies. 

1146: 

1147: On the other hand, the number of false peaks can be a sensitive probe to the

1148: intrinsic alignments of background galaxies. A value $\sigma^2_{0corr}\approx 0.1\sigma^2_{0ran}$

1149: results $N_{peak}(\nu_{ran}\ge 3.5, \sigma_{0corr})=1.7N_{peak}(\nu_{ran}\ge 3.5, \sigma_{0corr}=0)$.

1150: Thus it is easier to derive information of $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ from $N_{peak}(\nu_{ran})$ 

1151: than to directly measure $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ from two-point correlations. The studies 

1152: of CFHTLS Deep cluster survey find that $5$ out of $14$ peaks with $\nu_{ran}>3.5$

1153: in the area of $3.61\hbox{ deg}^2$ are possibly false ones. We then obtain a constraint 

1154: $\sigma^2_{0corr}<2\times 10^{-5}$ ($1\sigma$), which corresponds to the constraint on 

1155: $A$ in eq. (4) with $A< 2.9$, fully consistent with the limit from SDSS observations.

1156: Future large surveys can generate samples containing many lensing detected 

1157: candidates. If one can find $50$ false peaks, the quantity $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$

1158: can be constrained to $\delta (\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran})\sim 1.8\%$. 

1159: With $\sigma^2_{0ran}\sim 4\times 10^{-4}$,

1160: we then have $\delta (\sigma^2_{0corr})\sim 7\times 10^{-6}$ and $\delta (C_{11}+C_{22})

1161: \sim 1.4\times 10^{-5}$.

1162: %

1163: %Considering the CFHTLS Wide Survey

1164: %probing $\sim 170\hbox{ deg}^2$, we expect about $200$ false peaks if we scale up the

1165: %CFHTLS Deep results to $\sim 170\hbox{ deg}^2$, and the intrinsic alignments can be 

1166: %probed to an unprecedented level. With a higher detection threshold $\nu_{ran}^{lim}=4$

1167: %that may be more suitable for such a wide survey, around $50$ false peaks are expected.

1168: %Then we can obtain a $1\sigma$ constraint on $\sigma^2_{0corr}$ with 

1169: %$\sigma^2_{0corr}< 10^{-5}$.

1170: 

1171: The intrinsic alignments of galaxies carry important information of galaxy formation, 

1172: especially the environmental effects. Previous observational studies show that the 

1173: intrinsic alignments of galaxies are at the lower end of the theoretical predictions 

1174: for dark matter halos, indicating the possible existence of misalignment between galaxies 

1175: and their host halos (e.g., Heymans et al. 2006). 

1176: The method proposed in this paper allows us to constrain the 

1177: intrinsic alignments of galaxies to a very high precision, and therefore is very 

1178: promising in detailed studies on the formation of galaxies. 

1179: 

1180: In our analysis, we assume a Gaussian statistics for the noise in smoothed $\kappa$ fields

1181: for both cases with or without intrinsic alignments. 

1182: Although we do not expect a highly non-Gaussian smoothed noise field

1183: because of the central limit theorem,

1184: its detailed statistical properties deserve thorough investigations. 

1185: %Even some weak non-Gaussianity

1186: %may affect the peak statistics significantly. With numerical simulations, we will

1187: %carry out detailed studies in this aspect taking into account the intrinsic alignments. 

1188: The existence of intrinsic ellipticities as well

1189: as their alignments not only produces false peaks in $\kappa$ maps, but also affects the 

1190: height of the true peaks that are associated with clusters of galaxies. From 

1191: previous discussions, we have $K_N(\vec \theta)=K(\vec \theta)+N(\vec \theta)$ for smoothed

1192: $\kappa$ fields. Assuming that $K$ and $N$ are independent of each other, we can write

1193: the distribution of $K_N$ in the form $p(K_N)dK_N=[\int p_{K}(K)p_{N}(K_N-K)dK]dK_N$.

1194: It is seen that $p(K_N)$ depends on the statistics of $K$ and $N$. Thus detailed

1195: analyses on the statistical properties of $K$ and $N$ are crucial in order to understand 

1196: how the true peaks are influenced by the noise. Further complications

1197: arise due to the shear-ellipticity correlations (e.g., Hirata \& Seljak 2004; Mandelbaum et al. 2006). 

1198: Because the ellipticities of galaxies are associated with the properties of their host halos, 

1199: correlations between the ellipticities of foreground galaxies and the shears generated by 

1200: their host halos on background galaxies are expected. Then $K$ and $N$ are not 

1201: independent quantities anymore. The effects of intrinsic alignments and

1202: shear-ellipticity correlations on lensing analyses depend differently on the redshift distribution of 

1203: background galaxies. The narrower the distribution is, the stronger

1204: the effects of the intrinsic alignments are. For shear-ellipticity correlations, 

1205: the effects are stronger for broader distributions. For tomographic lensing studies,

1206: the intrinsic alignments are important for galaxies within the same redshift bins,

1207: while the shear-ellipticity correlations are significant in considering the cross correlations

1208: between different bins. Extensive investigations on these problems and their

1209: effects on weak lensing cluster surveys will be pursued in our future research. 

1210: 

1211: Weak lensing cluster studies together with other lensing analyses are sensitive probes of

1212: the dark matter distribution as well as the nature of dark energy (e.g., Fang \& Haiman 2006). 

1213: With fast observational advances and thorough theoretical understandings of different systematics,

1214: cosmological applications of weak lensing effects will greatly improve our knowledge 

1215: about the universe.

1216: 

1217: \acknowledgments 

1218: %We sincerely thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments and

1219: %suggestions. 

1220: We sincerely thank the referee for the encouraging and constructive comments and 

1221: suggestions. This research was supported in part by the

1222: National Science Foundation of China under grants 10243006 and

1223: 10373001, by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China

1224: under grant TG1999075401, by the Key Grant

1225: Project of Chinese Ministry of Education (No. 305001),

1226: and by the National Science Foundation of China under grant 10533010.

1227: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1228: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1229: 

1230:    \begin{thebibliography}{}

1231:    \bibitem[Bartelmann \& Schneider (2001)]{bs01}Bartelmann, M., \& Schneider, P. 2001, Physics Reports, 340, 291

1232:    \bibitem[Bode(2006)]{}Bode, P., Ostriker, J. P., Weller, J., \& Shaw, L. astro-ph/0612663

1233:    \bibitem[Bond(1987)]{}Bond, J. R, \& Efstathiou, G. 1987, \mnras, 226, 655

1234:    \bibitem[Borgani(2006)]{}Borgani, S. 2006, astro-ph/0605575 

1235:    \bibitem[Brown(2002)]{}Brown, M. L., Taylor, A. N., Hambly, N. C., \& Dye, S. 2002, \mnras, 333, 501

1236:    \bibitem[Croft(2000)]{}Croft, R. A. C., \& Metzler, C. A. 2000, \apj, 545, 561

1237:    \bibitem[Crittenden(2001)]{}Crittenden, R. G., Natarajan, P., Pen, U. L., \& Theuns, T. 2001, 

1238: \apj, 559, 552

1239:    \bibitem[Erben(2000)]{}Erben, Th., van Waerbeke, L., Mellier, Y., Schneider, P., Cuillandei, J. C., Castander, F. J. \& Dantel-Fort, M. 2000, A\&A, 355, 23

1240:    \bibitem[Fang(2006)]{}Fang, W., \& Haiman, Z. 2006, astro-ph/0612187

1241:    \bibitem[Gavazzi(2007)]{}Gavazzi, R., \& Soucail, G. 2007, A\& A, 462, 259

1242:    \bibitem[Hamana(2004)]{}Hamana, T., Takada, M., \& Yoshida, N. 2004, \mnras, 350, 893 

1243:    \bibitem[Heavens(2000)]{}Heavens, A., Refregier, A., \& Heymens, C. 2000, \mnras, 319, 649

1244:    \bibitem[Hennawi(2005)]{}Hennawi, J. F. \& Spergel, D. N. 2005, \apj, 624, 59

1245:    \bibitem[Heymans(2004)]{}Heymans, C., Brown, M., Heavens, A., Meisenheimer, K. Taylor, A., \& Wolf, C. 2004, \mnras, 347, 895

1246:    \bibitem[Heymans(2006)]{}Heymans, C., White, M., Heavens, A., Vale, C., \& van Waerbeke, L.  2006, \mnras, 371, 750

1247:    \bibitem[Hirata(2004)]{}Hirata, C. M., \& Seljak, U. 2004, Phys. Rev. D., 70, 063526

1248:    \bibitem[Hoekstra(2006)]{}Hoekstra, H., Mellier, Y., van Waerbeke, L., Semboloni, E., Fu, L., Hudson, M. J., Parker, L. C., Tereno, I., \& Benabed, K. 2006, \apj, 647, 116

1249:    \bibitem[Jing(2002)]{}Jing, Y. P. 2002, \mnras, 335, L89

1250:    \bibitem[Kaiser(1993)]{}Kaiser, N., \& Squires, G. 1993, \apj, 404 441

1251:    \bibitem[King(2003)]{}King, L. J., \& Schneider, P. 2003, A\&A, 398, 23

1252:    \bibitem[King(2006)]{}King, L. J. 2006, A\&A, 441, 47 

1253:    \bibitem[Knox(2006)]{}Knox, L. , Song, Y., \& Tyson, J. A. 2006, Phys. Rev. D., 74, 023512

1254:    \bibitem[Linden(2006)]{}von der Linden, A., Erben, T., Schneider, P., \& Castander, F. J. 2006, A\&A, 454, 37 

1255:    \bibitem[Mandelbaum(2006)]{}Mandelbaum, R. , Hirata, C. M., Ishak, M., Seljak, U., \& Brinkmann, J. 2006, \mnras, 367, 611

1256:    \bibitem[Massey(2007)]{}Massey, R. et al. 2007, Nature, 445, 286 

1257:    \bibitem[Munshi(2006)]{}Munshi, D. , Valageas, P., van Waerbeke, L., \& Heavens, A. 2006, astro-ph/0612667 

1258:    \bibitem[NFW(1996)]{}Navarro, J., Frenk, C. \& White, S. D. M. 1996, \apj, 462, 563

1259:    \bibitem[Porciani(2002)]{}Porciani, C. , Dekel, A., \& Hoffman, Y. 2002, \mnras, 332, 32

1260:    \bibitem[Semboloni(2007)]{}Semboloni, E., van Waerbeke, L., Heymans, C., Hamana, T., Colombi, S., White, M., \& Mellier, Y. 2007, \mnras, 375L, 6

1261:    \bibitem[Schirmer(2007)]{}Schirmer, M., Erben, T., Hetterscheidt, M., \&  Schneider, P. 2007, A\& A, 462, 875

1262:    \bibitem[Schneider(1996)]{}Schneider, P. 1996, \mnras, 283, 837

1263:    \bibitem[Starck(2006)]{}Starck, J. L., Pires, S. \& Refregier, A. 2006, A\& A, 451, 1139

1264:    \bibitem[Tang(2005)]{}Tang, J. Y., \& Fan, Z. H. 2005, \apj, 635, 60 

1265:    \bibitem[Waerbeke(2000)]{}van Waerbeke, L. 2000, \mnras, 313, 524 

1266:    \bibitem[White(2002)]{}White, M., van Waerbeke, L., \& Mackey, J. 2002, \apj, 575, 640

1267: \end{thebibliography}

1268: %\end{document}

1269: 

1270: \begin{figure}

1271: %\plotone{f1.eps}

1272: %%\plotone{../Fig/sigma0_c_100_l.ps}

1273: % \caption{The variance contributed by intrinsic alignments. We take the mass 

1274: %limit $M_{lim}=10^{12}h^{-1}M_{\odot}$ and $\alpha=2$. The solid, dotted, dashed, and 

1275: %dot-dashed lines correspond to the results with $\beta=6, 3, 1.5$ and $1$, respectively.

1276: %The dash-dot-dot-dotted line is $\sigma^2_{0ran}$ with $\sigma_{\epsilon}=0.2$ and

1277: %$n_g=30\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$.

1278: %\(plotone{Revise/zdis.ps}

1279: \plotone{f1.eps}

1280: \caption{The redshift distribution of background galaxies with the functional form

1281: given in eq. (24). Here we take $\alpha=2$ and $z_s=0.7$. The solid, dotted, dashed, and

1282: dash-dotted lines correspond to $\beta=6$, $3$, $1.5$ and $1$, respectively.

1283: \label{yg6}}

1284: \end{figure}

1285: 

1286: \begin{figure}

1287: %\plotone{f2.eps}

1288: %%\plotone{../Fig/npeak_0_l.ps}

1289: %\caption{The differential number density of peaks scaled with $\theta_*^2$.

1290: %The solid, dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted lines correspond to $\gamma=\sqrt{2}/2,

1291: %\hbox{} 0.5, \hbox{} 0.3$ and $0.1$, respectively.

1292: %\plotone{Revise/sigma0_c_hsdss_l.ps}

1293: \plotone{f2.eps}

1294: \caption{The variance contributed by intrinsic alignments. We take $A=0.57$ in eq. (4),

1295: and $\alpha=2$ and $z_s=0.7$ in eq. (24). The solid, dotted, dashed, and

1296: dash-dotted lines correspond to the results with $\beta=6, 3, 1.5$ and $1$, respectively.

1297: The dash-dot-dot-dotted line is $\sigma^2_{0ran}$ with $\sigma_{\epsilon}=0.4$ and

1298: $n_g=30\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$.

1299: \label{yg4}}

1300: \end{figure}

1301: 

1302: \begin{figure}

1303: %\plotone{f3.eps}

1304: %%\plotone{../Fig/peaknum_l.ps}

1305: %\caption{The cumulative number density of peaks scaled with $\theta_*^2$. 

1306: %The solid, dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted lines correspond to $\gamma=\sqrt{2}/2,

1307: %\hbox{} 0.5, \hbox{} 0.3$ and $0.1$, respectively.

1308: %\plotone{Revise/cpeaknum_hsdss_diff_t1-2_l.ps}

1309: \plotone{f3.eps}

1310: \caption{The cumulative number of false peaks resulting from intrinsic alignments in $1\hbox{ deg}^2$.

1311: The thick solid line is the cumulative number of false peaks without intrinsic alignment.

1312: The thin solid, dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted lines are for $\beta=6$, $3$, $1.5$, and $1$, 

1313: respectively.

1314: \label{yg7}}

1315: \end{figure}

1316: 

1317: \begin{figure}

1318: %\plotone{f4.eps}

1319: %%\plotone{../Fig/gamma_c_100_l.ps}

1320: %\caption{The $\theta_G$-dependence of $\gamma$. The parameters and the line styles are the 

1321: %same as in Figure 1.

1322: %\plotone{Revise/cpeaknum_hfit_r_t1.ps}

1323: \plotone{f4.eps}

1324: \caption{The dependence of the ratio $r_{peak}=N_{peak}/N^{ran}_{peak}$ on $A$ for

1325: $\theta_G=1\hbox{ arcmin}$. Different panels show the results with different $\beta$ values.

1326: The solid, dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted lines are for $\nu_{ran}=5$, $4.5$, $4$, and

1327: $3.5$, respectively. The solid and dotted vertical lines are respectively at the position of $A=0.57$ 

1328: and $A=1.29$. 

1329: \label{yg8}}

1330: \end{figure}

1331: 

1332: %\begin{figure}

1333: %\plotone{Revise/cpeaknum_hfit_r_t2.ps}

1334: %\plotone{Revise/f5.eps}

1335: %\caption{The same as Figure 4 but for $\theta_G=2\hbox{ arcmin}$. 

1336: %\label{yg9}}

1337: %\end{figure}

1338: 

1339: %\begin{figure}

1340: %\plotone{f5.eps}

1341: %%\plotone{../Fig/thetas_c_100_l.ps}

1342: %\plotone{Revise/cpeaknum_hfit_r_t1.ps}

1343: %\caption{The $\theta_G$-dependence of $\theta_*$. The parameters and the line styles are the

1344: %same as in Figure 1.

1345: %\label{yg10}}

1346: %\end{figure}

1347: 

1348: \begin{figure}

1349: %\plotone{f6.eps} 

1350: %%\plotone{../Fig/cpeaknum_100_all_l.ps} 

1351: %\caption{The distribution of cumulative number density of false peaks with respect to 

1352: %$\nu=N/\sigma_0$. The parameters and the line styles are the same as in Figure 1.

1353: %\plotone{Revise/cpeaknum_hfit_sr_r_t1-2.ps}

1354: \plotone{f5.eps}

1355: \caption{The ratio $r_{peak}$ with respect to $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$. The upper

1356: and lower panels correspond to $\theta_G=1\hbox{ arcmin}$ and $\theta_G=2\hbox{ arcmin}$, 

1357: respectively. The four sets of solid, dotted, dashed and dash-dotted lines

1358: are respectively for $\nu_{ran}=5$, $4.5$, $4$, and $3.5$. Each set of lines contains

1359: results with $\beta=6$, $3$, $1.5$ and $1$. The vertical dotted lines from right to

1360: left show the value of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ with $A=1.29$ 

1361: for $\beta=6$, $3$, $1.5$ and $1$, respectively.

1362: \label{yg2}}

1363: \end{figure}

1364: 

1365: \begin{figure}

1366: %\plotone{f7.eps}

1367: %%\plotone{../Fig/cpeaknum_100_l_ran_1.ps}

1368: %\caption{The distribution of cumulative number density of false peaks with respect to

1369: %$\nu_{ran}=N/\sigma_{0ran}$. The parameters and the line styles are the same as in Figure 1.

1370: %\plotone{Revise/cfhtd_peaksr.ps}

1371: \plotone{f6.eps}

1372: \caption{The number of false peaks with $\nu_{ran}\ge 3.5$

1373: in $3.61\hbox{ deg}^2$. 

1374: The solid line is for the average number of false peaks.

1375: The upper and lower dashed lines represent $-1\sigma$

1376: and $-2\sigma$ Poisson deviations from the mean, respectively. The horizontal dash-dotted line is

1377: at $N_{peak}=5$. The two vertical dotted lines correspond to the values of

1378: $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ for the CFHTLS Deep with $A=0.57$ and $A=1.29$, from

1379: left to right, respectively.

1380: \label{yg2}}

1381: \end{figure}

1382: 

1383: \begin{table}

1384: \caption{Ratio of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ with 

1385: $\alpha=2$, $z_s=0.7$, $n_g=30\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2}$ and $\sigma_{\epsilon}=0.4$}\label{tab1}

1386: \begin{center}

1387: \begin{tabular}{llllllllllllll}\hline

1388:   $\beta$ & $z_{med}$ & $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ &

1389: $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ & $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ & $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran} $ & \\

1390: &  & $(\theta_G=1^{'})$ & $(\theta_G=2^{'})$ & $(\theta_G=1^{'})$ & $(\theta_G=2^{'})$ & \\

1391: &  & $(A=0.57)$ & $(A=0.57)$ & $(A=1.29)$ & $(A=1.29) $ & \\

1392:  \hline\hline

1393:       &  &  &  &  &  \\

1394:   $6$    & $0.55$ & $6\%$ & $10\%$ & $13.5\%$ & $22.6\%$ \\

1395:       &  &  &  &  &  \\

1396:   $3$    & $0.62$ & $3\%$ & $5\%$ & $6.8\%$ & $11.3\%$ \\

1397:       &  &  &  &  & \\

1398:   $1.5$  & $0.99$ & $1\%$ & $2\%$ & $2.3\%$ & $4.5\%$ \\

1399:     &  &  &  &  &  \\

1400:   $1$    & $1.87$ & $0.5\%$ & $0.8\%$ & $1.1\%$ & $1.8\%$ \\

1401:     &  &  &  &  &  \\

1402: %  1   &(0.9735)&0.4404\\

1403:  \hline

1404:  \end{tabular}

1405: \end{center}

1406: %{\footnotesize

1407: % \noindent

1408: % $^{a}$ Orbits in x-z start space for $v_y>0$ and each orbits's retrograde counterpart with $v_y<0$.

1409: % The total library in x-z start space contains 6000 orbits.\\

1410: %}

1411: \end{table}

1412: 

1413: \begin{table}

1414: \caption{Ratio of $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ for different surveys. 

1415: For the redshift distribution, we take $\alpha=2$ and $\beta=1.5$.

1416: }\label{tab1}

1417: \begin{center}

1418: \begin{tabular}{llllllllllllll}\hline

1419:  & $<z>$ & $z_s$ & $z_{med}$ & $n_g $ & $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ &

1420: $\sigma^2_{0corr}/\sigma^2_{0ran}$ & \\

1421: & &  &  & $(\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2})$  & $(\theta_G=1^{'})$ & $(\theta_G=2^{'})$ & \\

1422: & &  &  &  & $(A=0.57)$ & $(A=0.57)$ & \\

1423:  \hline\hline

1424:    &   &  &  &  &  &  \\

1425:   COSMOS & $1.2$   & $0.8$ & $1.13$ & $70$ & $2.3\%$ & $3.5\%$ \\

1426:    &   &  &  &  &  &  \\

1427:   SNAP &   $1.2$   & $0.8$ & $1.13$ & $100$ & $3.3\%$ & $5\%$ \\

1428:    &   &  &  &  &  & \\

1429:   SNAP(Deep) & $1.4$  & $0.93$ & $1.3$ & $300$ & $8.4\%$ & $12.8\%$ \\

1430:     &  &  &  &  &  & \\

1431:     &  &  &  &  &  & \\

1432: %  1   &(0.9735)&0.4404\\

1433:  \hline

1434:  \end{tabular}

1435: \end{center}

1436: %{\footnotesize

1437: % \noindent

1438: % $^{a}$ Orbits in x-z start space for $v_y>0$ and each orbits's retrograde counterpart with $v_y<0$.

1439: % The total library in x-z start space contains 6000 orbits.\\

1440: %}

1441: \end{table}

1442: 

1443: \begin{table}

1444: \caption{Probability for the detected clumps being false peaks from chance alignments 

1445: of background galaxies. Here $n_{clump}$ denotes the number of clumps found in the field,

1446: $p(ran)$ represents the probability without intrinsic alignments, and

1447: $p(corr)$ is the probability taking into account intrinsic alignments with $A=1.29$.}\label{tab1}

1448: \begin{center}

1449: \begin{tabular}{llllllllllllll}\hline

1450: Obs. & Area &  $n_g$ & $\theta_G$ & $\nu_{ran}$ & $n_{clump}$

1451: & $p(ran)$ & $p(corr)$  \\

1452: & $\hbox{deg}^2$ & $(\hbox{ arcmin}^{-2})$ &  $(\hbox{arcmin})$ &  &  & & \\

1453: & &  &  &  &  &  &\\

1454:  \hline\hline

1455:    &   &  &  &  &  & & \\

1456:   Erben et al. & $0.05$ & $20$ & $0.5$ & $4.5$ & $1$ & $0.9\%$ & $1\%$ \\

1457:    (2000) &   &  &  &  &  & & \\

1458:   Linden et al. & $0.05$ & $65$ & $0.5$ & $3$ & $1$ & $30\%$  & $27\%$ \\

1459:    (2006) &   &  &  &  &  & & &\\

1460:   Massey et al. & $2$  & $70$ & $1$ & $4$ & $2$ & $10\%$ & $15\%$ \\

1461:    (2007)&  &  &  &  &  & & \\

1462:   Massey et al. & $2$  & $70$ & $1$ & $4.5$ & $2$ & $0.3\%$ & $0.6\%$ \\

1463:    (2007)&  &  &  &  &  & & \\

1464:   Massey et al. & $2$  & $70$ & $1$ & $5$ & $2$ & $0.003\%$ & $0.01\%$ \\

1465:    (2007)&  &  &  &  &  & & \\

1466:     &  &  &  &  &  & &\\

1467: %  1   &(0.9735)&0.4404\\

1468:  \hline

1469:  \end{tabular}

1470: \end{center}

1471: %{\footnotesize

1472: % \noindent

1473: % $^{a}$ Orbits in x-z start space for $v_y>0$ and each orbits's retrograde counterpart with $v_y<0$.

1474: % The total library in x-z start space contains 6000 orbits.\\

1475: %}

1476: \end{table}

1477: 

1478: 

1479: %\begin{figure}

1480: %\plotone{f8.eps}

1481: %%\plotone{../Fig/cpeaknum_100r_l_1.ps}

1482: %\caption{The ratio of $N_{peak}(\nu_{ran})$ for different $\beta$ values 

1483: %to the number of peaks with $\sigma_{0corr}=0$.

1484: %The solid, dotted, dashed, and dash-dotted lines correspond to $\beta=6,\hbox{}3,\hbox{}1.5$

1485: %and $1$, respectively.

1486: %\label{yg2}}

1487: %\end{figure}

1488: 

1489: %\begin{figure}

1490: %\plotone{f9.eps}

1491: %%\plotone{../Fig/cmass_cfht_peaks_l_1_5.ps}

1492: %\caption{The number of false peaks with $\nu_{ran}>3.5$ 

1493: %in $3.61\hbox{ deg}^2$. The x-axis is $\sigma^2_{0corr}$.  

1494: %The solid line is for the average number of false peaks expected with the intrinsic

1495: %alignments of $\sigma^2_{0corr}$. The upper and lower dashed lines represent $1\sigma$ 

1496: %and $2\sigma$ Poisson deviations from the mean, respectively. The horizontal dash-dotted line is

1497: %at $N_{peak}=5$.

1498: %\label{yg2}}

1499: %\end{figure}

1500: 

1501: %\begin{figure}

1502: %\plotone{f10.eps}

1503: %%\plotone{../Fig/cmass_cfht_peak_l_h-1_5.ps}

1504: %\caption{The number of false peaks with $\nu_{ran}>3.5$

1505: %in $3.61\hbox{ deg}^2$. The x-axis is $M_h$ in units of $10^{12}h^{-1}{M}_{\odot}$.

1506: %The lines are the same as in Figure 9.

1507: %\label{yg2}}

1508: %\end{figure}

1509: 

1510: \end{document}

1511: