1: \documentclass[preprint,graphicx]{aastex}
2:
3:
4: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
5: \usepackage{apjfonts}
6:
7:
8: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
9: \newcommand{\myemail}{satoshi@subaru.naoj.org}
10:
11: \newcommand{\Slash}[1]{\ooalign{\hfil/\hfil\crcr$#1$}}
12:
13: \slugcomment{ApJ in press}
14:
15: \shorttitle{Suprime-Cam Weak Lensing Survey (I)}
16: \shortauthors{Miyazaki et al.}
17:
18: \begin{document}
19: \title{A Subaru Weak Lensing Survey I: Cluster Candidates
20: and Spectroscopic Verification }
21: \author{
22: Satoshi Miyazaki\altaffilmark{1},
23: Takashi Hamana\altaffilmark{1},
24: Richard S. Ellis\altaffilmark{2}, \\
25: Nobunari Kashikawa\altaffilmark{1},
26: Richard J. Massey\altaffilmark{2},
27: James Taylor\altaffilmark{3},
28: Alexandre Refregier\altaffilmark{4}
29: }
30: \email{satoshi@subaru.naoj.org}
31:
32: \altaffiltext{1}{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}
33: \altaffiltext{2}{California Institute of Technology, 105-24 Astronomy,
34: Pasadena CA 91125 USA}
35: \altaffiltext{3}{University of Waterloo, Department of Physics \& Astronomy,
36: Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada}
37: \altaffiltext{4}{Service d'Astrophysique CEA Saclay, Bat. 709 F-91191 Gif sur
38: Yvette, France}
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41: We present the results of an ongoing weak lensing survey conducted
42: with the Subaru telescope whose initial goal is to locate and study the
43: distribution of shear-selected structures or {\it halos}. Using a
44: Suprime-cam imaging survey spanning 21.82 deg$^2$, we present a
45: catalog of 100 candidate halos located from lensing convergence
46: maps. Our sample is reliably drawn from that subset of our survey area,
47: (totaling 16.72 deg$^2$) uncontaminated by bright stars and edge
48: effects and limited at a convergence signal to noise ratio of 3.69. To
49: validate the sample detailed spectroscopic measures have been made
50: for 26 candidates using the Subaru multi-object spectrograph, FOCAS.
51: All are confirmed as clusters of galaxies but two arise as the superposition
52: of multiple clusters viewed along the line of sight. Including data available
53: in the literature and an ongoing Keck spectroscopic campaign, a total of
54: 41 halos now have reliable redshifts. For one of our survey fields, the
55: XMM LSS \citep{pierre04} field, we compare our lensing-selected halo
56: catalog with its X-ray equivalent. Of 15 halos detected in the XMM-LSS field,
57: 10 match with published X-ray selected clusters and a further 2 are
58: newly-detected and spectroscopically confirmed in this work. Although
59: three halos have not yet been confirmed, the high success rate within
60: the XMM-LSS field (12/15) confirms that weak lensing provides a
61: reliable method for constructing cluster catalogs, irrespective of
62: the nature of the constituent galaxies or the intracluster medium.
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65: \keywords{cosmology: observations---dark matter---large scale
66: structure of universe}
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69: Clusters of galaxies represent the most massive bound systems in
70: the cosmos. Although they result from non-linear structure evolution,
71: the departure from linear growth is modest compared to that for
72: less massive objects. As a result, simple analytic models can provide
73: an accurate indication of their expected number density at various
74: redshifts. This is the primary reason why cluster of galaxies are
75: considered to be valuable cosmological probes.
76:
77: Cosmological attention has focused on the redshift-dependent number
78: of clusters, $N(z)$, whose mass exceeds a certain threshold. This is
79: one of the most straightforward observables, and is a function of the
80: cluster mass function, $d^2n/dMdz$, and the evolution of comoving
81: volume $dV/d\Omega(z)$. The mass function is obtained from the growth
82: rate of density fluctuations, $\delta(z)$, numerically
83: \citep{jenkinsetal01} under the assumption of a particular theory of
84: structure formation, e.g. the currently-popular cold dark matter (CDM) model.
85: Since both $\delta(z)$ and $dV/d\Omega(z)$ are dependent on
86: the cosmological model, useful constraints could be estimated by
87: comparing $N(z)$ with various model predictions. To make progress,
88: e.g. on the dark energy equation of state parameter $w$,
89: data on several thousand clusters to $z\simeq$1 is thought to be
90: required \citep{levineetal02,wangetal04}, and maintaining an
91: accurate and uniform mass threshold is critical.
92:
93: Most early work focused on selecting clusters optically, with detection
94: techniques that have improved over the decades: e.g. matched-filter
95: \citep{postmanetal96}, red-sequence \citep{gladdersetal00}, cut-and-enhance
96: \citep{gotoetal02}. Optically selected samples have traditionally
97: suffered from uncertainties in the optical richness - mass relation,
98: although there has been recent progress in calibrating
99: the closely related richness-velocity dispersion relation using the
100: large maxBCG sample of clusters identified in the Sloan Digital Sky
101: Survey \citep{beckeretal07}.
102:
103: So far, X-ray samples have been the most popular cosmological probes
104: e.g. \cite{bohringeretal01}, \cite{ikebeetal02}, \cite{reiprichetal02}.
105: Luminosity ($L_X$) or temperature ($T_X$)-limited samples
106: offer simpler selection functions because the observables, $L_X$,
107: $T_X$, are a fair estimate of the cluster mass, calibrated through
108: empirical scaling relations. The derived mass does depend, however,
109: on the assumed dynamical state of the system. Unrelaxed clusters,
110: arising for example from recent mergers, will introduce scatter in
111: the scaling relation. A recent study by \cite{smithetal05} points out
112: that at least half of 10 z $\sim$ 0.2 cluster cores show unrelaxed
113: features and a scatter of $\sigma \sim 0.4$ around the mean scaling relation.
114:
115: Weak gravitational lensing, which analyses the coherent shear
116: pattern of background galaxies, can potentially provide
117: estimates of the cluster mass {\it regardless of its dynamical state
118: or the properties of the constituent galaxies}. For some years,
119: the method has been used to calibrate mass obtained from
120: X-ray data \citep{smail97}. \cite{allenetal03} concluded that X-ray
121: mass measurements are consistent with those from weak lensing,
122: particularly for relaxed systems which thus offer a useful
123: cosmological probe\citep{allenetal04}.
124:
125: A natural extension of this progress is thus to consider selecting
126: clusters directly from weak lensing signals. The development of
127: panoramic imaging surveys has now made this a practical
128: proposition. \cite{wittmanetal01} reported the first discovery of a cluster
129: located from a weak lensing convergence map, during the
130: course of conducting the Deep Lens Survey \citep{wittmanetal02}.
131: \cite{miyazakietal02a} later undertook a systematic search of mass
132: concentrations on a 2 deg$^2$ field using the Suprime-Cam imager
133: on Subaru. They detected several significant (S/N$>4$) candidates,
134: one of which was later spectroscopically identified as a cluster at
135: $z$ =0.41. \cite{hetterscheidtetal05} investigated 50 randomly-selected
136: VLT FORS1 fields, spanning 0.64 deg$^2$ in total, and found 5
137: shear-selected candidates, each associated with an overdensity
138: in luminosity. The first results from the Deep Lens Survey, based
139: on an area of 8.6 deg$^2$ have also recently emerged \citep{wittmanetal06}.
140:
141: The above pioneering studies have demonstrated that clusters can
142: be located directly via weak lensing. However, key issues, including
143: the optimum selection threshold, the rate of spurious detection and
144: the degree of mass completeness at a given redshift, crucial for any
145: eventual cosmological application, remain unresolved.
146:
147: At the present time, theoretical studies offer the only insight into
148: these issues. Projection is one of the most troublesome aspects of a weak
149: lensing survey, because of the relatively broad window function.
150: Unrelated structures contributing to the signal would lead to an
151: overestimate of the cluster mass. Moreover, as the noise in the
152: convergence map arises largely from shot noise in the ellipticity
153: distribution of background galaxies, some fraction of genuine clusters
154: might be missed in a shear selected catalog. N-body and ray-tracing
155: simulations \citep{whiteetal02,hamanaetal04,hennawiandspergel05}
156: have concluded that, for systems whose convergence signal lie above a
157: 4 standard deviation ($\sigma$) threshold, 60-75\% of clusters can
158: reliably recovered (completeness). Likewise, for peaks detected
159: in the simulated data using typically-used algorithms, 60-75 \%
160: represent genuine clusters (efficiency). The difference in these
161: figures between the various studies is largely due to differences in
162: the lower mass limit adopted in the studies.
163:
164: This series of papers is motivated by the need to address these
165: key issues observationally. The survey we describe is a natural
166: and ongoing extension of the 2 deg$^2$ survey of \cite{miyazakietal02a};
167: to date a total field of 21.82 deg$^2$ has been imaged. This first paper
168: describes the imaging survey and discusses the validation of the
169: candidates found, both via spectroscopic verification and comparison
170: with clusters located via X-ray techniques. Later papers in the series
171: will extend the spectroscopic follow-up to the full sample and will
172: consider the feasibility of deriving cosmological constraints from
173: both this survey and future enhanced versions.
174: We note that a similary motivated program has been initiated by
175: \cite{maturietal06} , \cite{schirmeretal06} and
176: \cite{dietrichetal07}, all of which made used of the imaging data
177: taken by 2.5 m VLT survey telescope. We compare the their conclusions
178: with our own in this paper.
179:
180: We note that
181: a similarly motivated program has been initiated by \cite{maturietal06}
182: and \citet{schirmeretal06} whose conclusions we compare with our own
183: in this paper.
184:
185:
186: A plan of the paper follows. We discuss the imaging
187: strategy and data analysis in \S2, including construction of the cluster
188: catalog and its reliability. In \S3, we describe our initial spectroscopic
189: follow-up with Subaru and address the completeness by comparing
190: X-ray selected clusters on one of our survey area where relevant
191: X-ray data is available. We summarize our conclusions in \S4.
192:
193: \section{Imaging Observations \& Data Analysis}
194:
195: \subsection{Survey Fields}
196:
197:
198: \begin{table*}
199: \caption{Suprime-Cam Weak Lensing Survey Fields.
200: \label{tab:survey_field}}
201: \begin{center}
202: \begin{tabular}{lllccccccc}
203: \tableline\tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
204: Field & RA & DEC & Area\tablenotemark{a}& Secure Area\tablenotemark{b} & Seeing\tablenotemark{c} & $\rho_{gal}$\tablenotemark{d} & $T_{R}$\tablenotemark{e} & $T_{C}$\tablenotemark{e} & $T_{N}$\tablenotemark{e} \\
205: & & & deg$^2$ & deg$^2$ & arcsec& arcmin$^2$ & ksec & ksec & ksec \\ \hline%\\%[3pt]
206: DEEP02 & 02:30 & 00 & 1.39 & 0.73 & $0.70\pm 0.06$ & $33.5\pm 6.1 $ &
207: & & \\
208: SXDS & 02:18 &--05 & 1.12 & 0.83 & $0.68\pm 0.06$ & $47.7 \pm 5.7 $ & & & 100 \\
209: XMM-LSS & 02:26 &--04 & 2.80 & 2.24 & $0.55\pm 0.07$ & $46.0 \pm 6.7 $ & & & 10 \\
210: Lynx & 08:49 & +45 & 1.76 & 1.28 & $0.80\pm 0.08$ & $30.7\pm 7.3 $ & 64 & 300 & 140 \\
211: COSMOS & 10:02 & +01 & 1.92 & 1.41 & $0.54\pm 0.03$ & $37.1\pm 2.1$ & & & 30 \\
212: Lockman Hole & 10:52 & +57 & 1.85 & 1.57 & $0.60\pm 0.14$ & $39.3\pm 7.8 $ &200 & 300 & 100 \\
213: GD140 & 11:36 & +30 & 1.83 & 1.50 & $0.71\pm 0.17$ & $29.3\pm 12.9 $ & 33 & & \\
214: PG1159-035 & 12:04 &--04 & 1.43 &1.19 & $0.75\pm 0.05$ & $23.4\pm 3.6 $ & 51 & & \\
215: 13 hr Field & 13:34 & +38 & 2.06 &1.72 & $0.74\pm 0.17$ & $29.6\pm 9.6 $ &110 & 120 & 130 \\
216: GTO2deg$^2$ & 16:04 & +43 & 2.01 & 1.53 & $0.67\pm 0.04$ & $38.0\pm 3.6 $ & 26 & & \\
217: CM DRA & 16:34 & +57 & 1.38 & 0.99 & $0.72\pm 0.12$ & $28.4\pm 8.4 $ & 47 & & \\
218: DEEP16 & 16:52 & +36 & 1.20 & 0.93 & $0.76\pm 0.08$ & $26.4\pm 4.0 $ & & & \\
219: DEEP23 & 23:30 & 00 & 1.07 & 0.80 & $0.58\pm 0.01$ & $36.3\pm 1.3 $ & & & \\
220: \noalign{\smallskip}\tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
221: Total & & & 21.82 & 16.72 & & & & & \\
222: \end{tabular}
223: \tablenotetext{a} {Field area covered by several Suprime-Cam pointings.}
224: \tablenotetext{b} {Secure area used for halo sample (see text)}
225: \tablenotetext{c,d}{Seeing (FWHM) and galaxy densities $\rho_{gal}$
226: refer to average values of the constituent pointings. The scatter is listed
227: in terms of a standard deviation.}
228: \tablenotetext{e}{ $T_{R}$, $T_{C}$, and $T_{N}$ represent X-ray exposure
229: times of ROSAT, Chandra and XMM-Newton, respectively.}
230: \end{center}
231: \end{table*}
232:
233: In order to evaluate the efficiency of our weak lensing survey for locating
234: cluster halos, we considered that a comparison with a sample of X-ray
235: selected clusters would be highly advantageous \citep{henry00}.
236: Therefore, our survey fields were primarily selected to contain X-ray data
237: as shown in Table~\ref{tab:survey_field}.
238:
239: We set a minimum ROSAT exposure time, $T_R$, of 25 ksec ensuring a
240: detection limit of $L_x(0.5-2.0 keV) \sim 2 \times 10^{43}$erg/s at
241: $z\simeq$0.5 (for $H_0=75$,$\Omega_M=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$).
242: This corresponds to $M \sim 10^{14}M_{\odot}$, which is well matched to
243: the likely mass detection limit of our weak lensing survey \citep{miyazakietal02a}.
244: More sensitive X-ray missions, XMM-Newton and Chandra, have been
245: surveying ROSAT fields, in part, to deeper limits. These include the ``Lynx'',
246: ``Lockman Hole'' and ``UK 13 hr deep field'' in our target list. XMM is also
247: actively involved in international campaigns of multi-wavelength wide field
248: ($> 1 deg^2$) observations such as the ``COSMOS'' , ``XMM-LSS'' and
249: ``SXDS'' fields which we also included. Among these, the XMM-LSS field
250: \citep{pierre04} is of particular interest given its panoramic area and
251: published cluster catalogs \citep{valtchanovetal04,willisetal05,pierreetal06}.
252:
253: Finally, we included the DEIMOS DEEP2 survey fields \citep{davisetal03}
254: where spectra of $\sim$ 50,000 faint galaxies will eventually become
255: available. This will enable close correlations of lensing mass and various
256: measures of the luminosity density as was recently pioneered for the
257: COSMOS field \citep{massey07}. Although X-ray data is not available
258: for these DEEP fields at the current time, such observations are
259: planned and will likely become available soon.
260:
261: \subsection{Observations}
262:
263: \vspace{0.3cm}
264: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=8.5cm\epsfbox{f1.eps}}}}
265: \figcaption{
266: Seeing (a) and raw stellar ellpticities (b) measured during the
267: observing run of a intensive program (May 1-4 and September 27, 2003).
268: Average values derived from 700$\sim$1000 stars over the entire field
269: are plotted. The abscissa shows the observing time (in days) with the
270: portion of each day shifted arbitrarily for clarity. The median seeing
271: is 0.65 $\pm$ 0.14 arcsec, which is typical for the survey.
272: \label{fig:fwhmee}}
273: \vspace{0.3cm}
274:
275: The imaging observations were largely carried out on May 1-4 and September 27,
276: 2003 as part of an ``Intensive Program'' of Subaru Telescope. The Lynx field
277: was observed on January 29-30, 2003, SXDS data was obtained from the public archive
278: and the COSMOS field observed on February 18 and 21, 2004.
279:
280: The Suprime-Cam field size is 0.25 deg$^2$ and all observations were
281: conducted with the $R_c$ filter (except the COSMOS field which was observed
282: in $i'$-band to enable direct comparison with ACS$/$HST's F814W images).
283: The total exposure time was 30 minutes for each pointing, taken
284: via four 7.5 minute exposures in a dither pattern of spacing $\sim$ 1 arcmin.
285:
286: Fig.~\ref{fig:fwhmee} (top) shows the seeing (FWHM) of each 7.5 minute
287: exposure over a typical five night observing sequence. The bottom panel
288: shows ellipticities of moderately bright unsaturated stars which provide a
289: measure of the PSF anisotropy; the raw ellipticity is mostly 2 - 4 \%
290: (and occasionally $>$ 5 \%). We discuss the question of the PSF anisotropy
291: in Appendix~\ref{sec:imagequality}. Thus far, we have surveyed over
292: 21.82 deg$^2$ as summarized in Table~\ref{tab:survey_field}.
293:
294: The useful field area excludes the surroundings of bright stars and galaxies
295: and field boundaries. Individual pointings whose seeing was worse than
296: 0.9 arcsec were also excluded; this occurred for only 5 \% of the clear time
297: (see section~\ref{sec:wlana}).
298:
299: \subsection{Data Reduction}
300:
301: The data reduction procedures for the present survey closely followed
302: those described in Section 3.1 of \cite{miyazakietal02b}, enhanced
303: as discussed below.
304:
305: Normally, with Suprime-Cam images, each CCD exposure is ``mosaic-stacked''
306: to yield a single image of a particular pointing. A simple geometrical model is
307: used for the focal plane astrometry whose parameters include the effects
308: of camera distortion, the displacement and rotation of each detector from
309: a defined fiducial location and the offset and the rotation of the dithered
310: exposures. The best fit parameters are obtained by minimizing the positional
311: difference of control stars (70$\sim$100 stars per CCD) held common for
312: each exposure. The residual alignment error in this procedure is $\sim$ 0.5
313: pixel rms (0.1 arcsec rms).
314:
315: Such a residual is sufficiently small for most imaging applications.
316: However, in seeing better than 0.6 arcsec (FWHM), a misalignment of
317: 0.1 arcsec between two images introduces a $\simeq$2 \% ellipticity on
318: the stacked image which is a serious issue for weak lensing studies.
319:
320: A further improvement is thus necessary. The residual $(\Delta x, \Delta y)$
321: from a reference frame is parameterized as a polynomial function of
322: field position $\vec{x} =(x, y)$ as:
323:
324: \begin{equation}
325: \Delta x = \sum^{6}_{l=0}\sum^{l}_{m=0} a_{lm,e} x^{l-m}y^m \;\;\;\;
326: \Delta y = \sum^{6}_{l=0}\sum^{l}_{m=0} b_{lm,e} x^{l-m}y^m
327: \end{equation}
328:
329: Pixel values are estimated via linear interpolation of neighboring four
330: pixels. The coefficients $a_{lm,e}$ and $b_{lm,e}$ are then obtained by
331: minimizing the variance of the residuals. A sixth order polynomial
332: is usually sufficient for this purpose. Each individual CCD image
333: is `warped' using this polynomial correction prior to stacking. This
334: process reduces the alignment error to $\sim$ 0.07 pixel (0.014 arcsec)
335: and is similar to the ``Jelly CCD'' model described in \cite{kaiseretal99}.
336:
337: Although an external stellar catalog would ideally be used for accurate
338: astrometry, no such data is available at the relevant faint limits
339: (R $>$ 22). We therefore employ the first exposure, corrected by the
340: simple geometrical model discussed above, as the basic reference
341: frame.
342:
343: We noticed that this refined procedure still introduces some artificial
344: deformation. Fig.~\ref{fig:warp}(a) represents the raw image of one CCD
345: whereas Fig.~\ref{fig:warp}(b) is that slightly rotated by $7\times 10^{-4}$
346: rad, a typical value, using the mapping described above. Clearly some
347: degree of artificial deformation is introduced. After some experimentation,
348: we found this deformation arises from the undersampled nature
349: of the Suprime-Cam images. By adopting 2$\times$2 oversampling prior to
350: rotation, the resulting ellipticity field shows no sign of image deformation.
351: However, this is a computationally a very time-consuming solution.
352:
353: \vspace{0.3cm}
354: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=8.5cm\epsfbox{f2.eps}}}}
355: \figcaption{
356: Effect of the under-sampled warp correction in an image taken with
357: 0.7 arcsec seeing: (a) no operation, (b) after rotation by $6.8\times 10^{-4}$
358: rad. A 1.8\% residual is reduced to 0.75 \%.
359: \label{fig:warp}}
360: \vspace{0.3cm}
361:
362: Accordingly, in our final analysis, instead of using oversampled images, we
363: modified the mapping procedure itself. We estimate the pixel values of the
364: target images from 3rd order bi-linear polynomial interpolation of
365: 4$\times$4 source pixels \footnote{In the actual implementation, we
366: employ the Numerical Recipes code {\tt polin2} \citep{pressetal93}. }
367: rather than the linear interpolation four neighboring pixels in the
368: previous procedure. This mapping process avoids introducing image
369: deformation and is significantly quicker computationally.
370:
371: \subsection{Galaxy Catalogs} \label{sec:galaxycatalogs}
372:
373: Object finding and shape measurement was executed on the mosaic-stacked
374: images using the {\it imcat} software suite developed by Nick Kaiser. A threshold
375: {\it nu}=10 was adopted. Photometric calibration used Landolt standard stars
376: \citep{landolt92} and the faint standards of \citep{majewskietal94}.
377: We adopt the Vega magnitude system in the following.
378:
379: Galaxies are distinguished from stars via their half light radius, $r_h$, viz:
380:
381: $$r_h > r_{h}^{*} + \sigma_{r_{h}^{*}}$$
382:
383: where $r_{h}^{*}$ and $\sigma_{r_{h}^{*}}$ are the half light radius of
384: a stellar image and its rms respectively. The galaxy size distribution is
385: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:size_gd140}.
386:
387: Fig.~\ref{fig:ncnt_gd140} shows the cumulative number density
388: of galaxies as a function of $R_c$-band magnitude. The surface density
389: exceeds 50 arcmin$^{-2}$ when the seeing is superb (0.47 arcsec)
390: and is $\sim15$ arcmin$^{-2}$ in those poor seeing images ($>$0.9 arcsec)
391: discarded from our analysis (Fig.~\ref{fig:seeing_gdens_pgamma}(a)).
392: Table~\ref{tab:survey_field} lists the seeing and the galaxy density for
393: each field.
394:
395: Finally, we masked all objects close to bright stars (within 18 arcsec for
396: $b_{USNO-A} < 15$, 90 arcsec for $b_{USNO-A} < 11.7$). Light halos
397: around bright stars can introduce spurious galaxies.
398:
399: \vspace{0.3cm}
400: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=8.5cm\epsfbox{f3.eps}}}}
401: \figcaption{Cumulative galaxy number counts used in the weak lensing
402: analysis. Three representative cases in the GD140 field are
403: shown to demonstrate how seeing affects the surface density.
404: \label{fig:ncnt_gd140}}
405: \vspace{0.3cm}
406:
407:
408: \vspace{0.3cm}
409: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=8.5cm\epsfbox{f4.eps}}}}
410: \figcaption{The size distribution of faint galaxies for the magnitude
411: range $23 < R_c < 26 $ observed under under three seeing
412: condition. The size is estimated by circular gaussian FWHM here.
413: Those whose size are larger than seeing size are adopted in the
414: galaxy catalogs.
415: \label{fig:size_gd140}}
416: \vspace{0.3cm}
417:
418: \vspace{0.3cm}
419: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=8.5cm\epsfbox{f5.eps}}}}
420: \figcaption{(a) Seeing dependence of faint galaxy (23 $< R_c <$ 26)
421: surface density for all survey pointings except those in the COSMOS field.
422: (b) Pre-seeing shear polarisability tensor, $P_{\gamma}$, averaged over
423: the galaxies on each pointing versus the seeing. The seeing dependence is
424: satisfactorily small for the selection threshold adopted.
425: \label{fig:seeing_gdens_pgamma}}
426: \vspace{0.3cm}
427:
428: \subsection{Weak Lensing Analysis} \label{sec:wlana}
429:
430: \subsubsection{Shape Measurements}
431:
432: Object shapes are represented by the ellipticities, $\vec{e}
433: = (e_1, e_2) = \{I_{11} - I_{22}, 2I_{12}\} / (I_{11}+I_{22})$
434: where $I_{ij}$
435: are Gaussian-weighted quadrupole moments of the surface brightness
436: distribution. The point spread function (PSF) of the images is usually
437: smeared by various instrumental effects such as optical aberrations
438: and the tracking error of the telescope. The PSF anisotropy is
439: estimated based on images of stars, and the galaxy images are
440: corrected so that images of neighboring stars are
441: re-circularized. Galaxy ellipticities are then corrected as:
442:
443: \begin{equation}
444: \label{Psmcorrection}
445: \vec{e}' = \vec{e} - \frac{P_{sm}}{P_{sm}^{*}}\vec{e}^{*},
446: \end{equation}
447:
448: where the asterisk designates a stellar value, $P_{sm}$ is the smear polarisability
449: tensor and is mostly diagonal \citep{ksb95}. $(P_{sm}^{-1}\vec{e})^{*}$ is
450: evaluated using stars in the field of view and modeled as 5th order bi-polynomial
451: function of position. Eqn.\ref{Psmcorrection} then applies this for the galaxy images.
452: This correction is carried out independently on each pointing. We
453: further justify the correction procedure in Appendix \ref{sec:imagequality}.
454:
455: \subsubsection{Shear Estimate}
456:
457: The shear induced by gravitational lensing, $\vec{\gamma}$, is
458: diluted by atmospheric seeing. \cite{lk97} developed a prescription to
459: convert the observed ellipticities to a 'pre-seeing shear' as
460:
461: \begin{equation}
462: \label{pgammacorrection}
463: \vec{\gamma} = (P_{\gamma})^{-1}\vec{e}'
464: \end{equation}
465:
466: where $P_{\gamma}$ is the pre-seeing shear polarisability tensor
467: defined as
468:
469: \begin{equation}
470: \label{pgamma}
471: P_{\gamma} = P_{sh} - P_{sm} (P_{sm}^{*})^{-1}P_{sh}^{*} .
472: \end{equation}
473:
474: $P_{sh}$ is the shear polarisability tensor defined in \cite{ksb95},
475: and $P_{sh}^{*}$ is the stellar shear polarisability tensor.
476:
477: Note that (the inverse of) $P_{\gamma}$ represents the degree of
478: dilution. Since the $P_{sh}$ and $P_{sm}$ are mostly diagonal, we
479: replace the tensors in Eqn.~\ref{pgamma} with their trace and evaluate
480: $P_{\gamma}$ as a scalar. The average value, $<P_{\gamma}>$,
481: over all galaxies ($23 < R_c < 26 $) of each pointing is shown in
482: Fig~\ref{fig:seeing_gdens_pgamma}(b). $<P_{\gamma}>$
483: decreases slightly as the seeing worsens but the change is
484: not very large (0.4 to 0.3). This is because we only select larger
485: galaxies compared with the seeing size. Thus, the dilution factor
486: is 30$\sim$40 \% regardless of the seeing. In the mean time,
487: we compare the first component of galaxy ellipticities, $e_1$,
488: of Suprime-Cam and ACS/HST images taken in the COSMOS field,
489: and the result is shown in Fig~\ref{fig:suprime_acs}.
490: The ellipticities observed by Suprime-Cam are in fact diluted by
491: 36 \% compared with those of ACS, which is consistent with
492: Fig~\ref{fig:seeing_gdens_pgamma}(b).
493:
494:
495: \vspace{0.3cm}
496: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=8.5cm\epsfbox{f6.eps}}}}
497: \figcaption{
498: Comparison of the first component of ellipticity, $e_1$, of
499: galaxies detected both on HST/ACS (F814W, 34 minutes) and
500: Suprime-Cam (i'-band, 20 minutes, 0.54 arcsec seeing) images
501: in part of the COSMOS field (10 arcmin$^2$). The best fit slope
502: and the error are also shown.
503: \label{fig:suprime_acs}}
504: \vspace{0.3cm}
505:
506:
507:
508: To calculate $P_{\gamma}$ as a function of position we employed a
509: ``smoothing'' scheme \citep{waerbeke00,erbenetal01,hamanaetal03}.
510: We took the median $P_{\gamma}$ for 20 neighboring galaxies on the
511: $r_g$-magnitude plane (where $r_g$ is a measure of object size adopted
512: in the {\it imcat} suite). In deriving the mean, the weight $w$ on an
513: individual measure is taken to be:
514:
515: \begin{equation}
516: \label{weight}
517: w = \frac{1}{\sigma_{\gamma}^2 + \alpha^2},
518: \end{equation}
519:
520: where $\sigma_{\gamma}$ is the variance of the raw $\gamma$
521: of those 20 neighbors, obtained using the raw $P_{\gamma}$. $\alpha$
522: is the variance of all of the galaxies in the catalog ($\sim$ 0.4).
523: In general, the weighted value of a quantity $<A>$ is calculated as
524: $<A> = \Sigma_{i=1}^N w_i A_i/\Sigma_{i=1}^Nw_i$ .
525:
526: The method we adopt is based on that adopted by \citet{ksb95}. More
527: sophisticated methods have since been developed and the variants
528: are summarized by \citet{heymansetal06}. In their notation, our method
529: is very similar to the procedure termed ``LV''.
530:
531:
532: Based on the results of the STEP simulation study, \cite{heymansetal06}
533: concluded that both the ``KSB+'' method, modified by \cite{hoekstraetal98}
534: and implementations of ``BJ02'' method \citep{bernsteinandjarvis02} are
535: able to reconstruct input shears to a few percent level. To calibrate
536: our method, we analyzed the simulated data provided by \cite{heymansetal06}.
537: For the model designated ``PSF3'', we underestimate the input shear by
538: 5\% for $\gamma_{true}$ = 0.1 and 0.05, whereas for $\gamma_{true} \le 0.01$,
539: the difference, $\gamma_{obs} - \gamma_{true}$ is insignificant. An error
540: of 5 \% in the recovered shear is competitive with most of the methods
541: discussed by \cite{heymansetal06} ($\sim$ 7 \% is a typical error). A 5\%
542: shear error would induce a similar uncertainty in the mass estimate
543: of a typical halo. Such an error is considered adequate for the applications
544: envisaged.
545:
546:
547: \subsubsection{Kappa Map}
548:
549: The dimensionless surface mass density, $\kappa(\vec{\theta})$, is
550: estimated from the shear field $\gamma(\vec{\theta})$ by the
551: \cite{kaiserandsquires93} inversion algorithm as:
552:
553: \begin{equation}
554: \label{eqn:ks93}
555: \kappa(\vec{\theta}) = \frac{1}{\pi} \int d^{2}\theta' Re[D^{*}(\vec{\theta} -
556: \vec{\theta'})\gamma(\vec{\theta '})],
557: \end{equation}
558:
559: where $D(\vec{\theta}) $ is defined as
560:
561: \begin{equation}
562: \label{eqn:complexkernel}
563: D(\vec{\theta}) = \frac{-1}{(\theta_1 - i \theta_2)^2},
564: \end{equation}
565:
566: which is a complex convolution kernel for $\kappa$ to obtain
567: the shear $\gamma$. In the actual implementation, we
568: smoothed to avoid the effect of noise. A smoothing scale of
569: $\theta_G = 1$ arcmin was chosen following the discussion
570: given by \citet{hamanaetal03}.
571:
572: We adopt 15$\times$15 arcsec$^2$ square grids and then
573: calculate $\kappa(\vec{\theta})$ on each grid using Eqn.\ref{eqn:ks93}
574: to obtain the $\kappa$ map. In order to estimate the noise of the
575: $\kappa$ field, we randomized the orientations of the galaxies in the
576: catalog and created a $\kappa_{\rm noise}$ map. We repeated this
577: randomization 100 times and computed the rms value at each grid
578: point where $\kappa$ is computed.
579: Assuming the $\kappa$ error distribution is Gaussian, this rms
580: represents the 1-$\sigma$ noise level, and thus the measured signal
581: divided by the rms gives the signal/noise ratio, $\nu(\theta)$, of the
582: $\kappa$ map at that point.
583:
584: The Gaussian-smoothed signal/noise map is then searched for mass
585: concentrations.
586: \cite{hennawiandspergel05} concluded that a 'truncated' NFW filter applied
587: to the aperture mass map, $M_{ap}$, is the most efficient detection
588: technique. Such optimization may be necessary to improve the efficiency
589: of future very wide field surveys where thousands of clusters are sought.
590: Here we adopt a simpler technique in order to evaluate its effectiveness
591: in a direct comparison of lensing and X-ray techniques.
592:
593: \subsection{Halo Catalog}
594:
595: Figure~\ref{fig:saclay_halomap} shows the results of a halo search
596: in one of our fields: the XMM-Wide field.
597: The red contour shows the $\kappa$ S/N map where
598: the threshold and increment are set at 2 and 0.5, respectively. The
599: blue contour shows the surface number density of moderately bright
600: galaxies ($21 < R_c < 23$). Local peaks are searched on the
601: $\kappa$ S/N map and their positions are marked as open and filled
602: circles. Figure~\ref{fig:deep02_halomap} to \ref{fig:deep23_halomap}
603: show the $\kappa$ S/N maps for the remainder of our survey fields.
604:
605: While visually inspecting galaxy concentrations around the detected halos,
606: we noticed that less concentrated halos tend to occur preferentially near
607: bright stars and field boundaries. Since regions near bright stars are
608: masked (section \ref{sec:galaxycatalogs}) conceivably the discontinuity
609: in the faint background galaxy distribution could cause spurious
610: peaks. To avoid this, we reject halos occurring within
611: a 4 arcmin radius of bright stars ($b_{USNO-A}$ $<$ 11) and within 2.3
612: arcmin of the field boundary. These restrictions reduce the survey area by
613: 23 \% to what we will refer to as the {\it secure survey area} (16.72 deg$^2$).
614: Halos found within the secure area are termed the {\it secure sample}.
615: It is certainly possible that a significant fraction of halos lying in
616: the non-secure area are genuine clusters. We will discuss this further
617: in a later paper concerned with their spectroscopic follow-up (Green et
618: al, in preparation).
619:
620: Detailed inspection of the halo candidates and the spectroscopic follow-up
621: discussed below revealed our completeness is high to a limiting
622: signal to noise in the convergence map of 3.69. Table~\ref{tab:halocat},
623: \ref{tab:halocat2} lists the secure sample with S/N $>$ 3.69. In this
624: table, N$_g$ represents the number of moderately bright ($R_c < 22$)
625: galaxies within 2 arcmin, indicative of the galaxy concentration.
626:
627: Concerning the optimum threshold for the significance, decreasing it
628: will increase the halo sample but likely introduce more false
629: detections. The optimum value should be set based on the
630: spectroscopically-observed true/false rate. Investigating the rate is
631: a major goal of our study. In this work, the least significant
632: spectroscopically-identified halos have S/N = 3.69 (XMM-Wide n=23). We
633: adopted the threshold of 3.69 for this work so that all
634: the spectroscopically followed-up samples are included in the table.
635:
636: We adopted significance maps for the selection of candidates
637: rather than kappa maps. This is because we would like to minimize
638: contamination by the false peaks. However, the effective kappa
639: threshold varies over the field, so we may encounter a
640: ``completeness'' problem; i.e. halos that have high kappa value are
641: lost from the list. We investigated such omissions in the
642: XMM-Wide field (Figure~\ref{fig:saclay_halomap}), and only one halo is
643: found in this category, with $S/N < 3.69$ \& $\kappa > \kappa_{thres}$
644: where the $\kappa_{thres}$ is calculated as
645: $\kappa_{thres} = 3.69 \times Noise_{global}$.
646: The ``$Noise_{global}$'' is estimated globally over the entire
647: XMM-Wide field kappa map, and is 0.018 here. This halo is lost because
648: the local noise is as high as 0.022.
649:
650: In practice, it will be very hard to generate completely uniform data
651: sets over the entire field of a survey because weather and seeing
652: conditions will vary. We will have to optimize the $\kappa_{thres}$ on
653: a field by field basis based on the data quality of each
654: field. Therefore, our strategy is the following: at first, we collect
655: reliable cluster samples based on the significance, and then users of
656: the catalog can set their own kappa threshold or mass threshold to
657: carry out their studies. This work represents the results of the first
658: step above. We list the kappa values in Table~\ref{tab:halocat},
659: \ref{tab:halocat2} for reference.
660:
661:
662:
663:
664: \begin{figure*}
665: \includegraphics[height=17.078cm]{f7.eps}
666: \caption{The $\kappa$-S/N map for the XMM-wide field (thick red contour). The
667: lowest contour is set at S/N = 2 with the increments of 0.5. The
668: smoothing scale, $\theta_G = 1$ arcmin. The thin blue contours show
669: the surface number density of visible (21$<R_c<$23) galaxies. Positions
670: of detected halos (S/N $>=$ 3.693) are designated by small circles.
671: Solid circles represent {\it secure halos} (see text) whereas unfilled
672: circles represent samples detected outside the secure area. Squares
673: show the location of X-ray selected clusters of galaxies published in
674: \cite{valtchanovetal04}, \cite{willisetal05} and \cite{pierreetal06}.
675: ({\bf VWP} data). Large open circles show halos followed up by
676: FOCAS and LRIS.
677: \label{fig:saclay_halomap}}
678: \end{figure*}
679:
680: \begin{table*}
681: \tabcaption{List of shear selected halos}
682: \label{tab:halocat}
683: \begin{footnotesize}
684: \begin{center}
685: \hspace*{-2.5em}
686: \begin{tabular}{llllllllllll}
687: \tableline\tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
688: Field & n & ID & RA & DEC & $\kappa$S/N & $\kappa$ & N$_g$\tablenotemark{a} & FOCAS \tablenotemark{b} & Known\tablenotemark{c} & NEDG\tablenotemark{d} & Note \\
689: \tableline\tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
690: DEEP02 & 00 & - & 37.32 & 0.63 & 4.44 & 0.099 & 16 & - & - & 1.35 & \\
691: & 01 & - & 37.87 & 0.51 & 4.39 & 0.083 & 24 & - & - & - & \\
692: & 02 & - & 37.38 & 0.41 & 4.25 & 0.120 & 19 & - & - & 0.73 & \\
693: & 04 & - & 37.15 & 0.73 & 4.11 & 0.086 & 25 & - & - & 0.10 & \\
694: & 05 & - & 37.31 & 0.44 & 4.07 & 0.131 & 20 & - & - & 1.03 & \\
695: & 06 & - & 37.72 & 0.69 & 3.97 & 0.081 & 18 & - & - & 0.86 & \\
696: & 07 & - & 37.86 & 0.57 & 3.95 & 0.074 & 18 & - & - & 0.92 & \\
697: & 08 & SL J0228.4+0030 & 37.12 & 0.51 & 3.93 & 0.085 & 49 & - & 0.46(P) & - & VGCF 46 \\
698: & 09 & SL J0228.2+0033 & 37.07 & 0.55 & 3.84 & 0.102 & 33 & - & 0.50(P) & - & {\tiny SDSS CE J037.099808+00.540769 }\\
699: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
700: SXDS & 00 & - & 34.29 & -5.59 & 5.33 & 0.057 & 26 & - & - & - & \\
701: & 01 & - & 34.38 & -4.86 & 4.14 & 0.084 & 24 & - & - & - & \\
702: & 02 & - & 34.61 & -4.41 & 3.96 & 0.059 & 16 & - & - & - & \\
703: & 03 & - & 34.74 & -4.70 & 3.90 & 0.044 & 19 & - & - & - & \\
704: & 04 & - & 34.96 & -5.12 & 3.86 & 0.069 & 21 & - & - & - & \\
705: & 05 & - & 34.41 & -4.50 & 3.77 & 0.056 & 26 & - & - & - & \\
706: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
707: XMM-Wide & 00 & SL J0221.7-0345 & 35.44 & -3.77 & 8.15 & 0.156 & 72 & - & 0.43 & - & XLSSC 006 \\
708: & 01 & SL J0225.7-0312 & 36.43 & -3.21 & 5.72 & 0.108 & 41 & 0.14 & - & - & LRIS z = 0.14 \\
709: & 02 & SL J0224.4-0449 & 36.10 & -4.82 & 5.06 & 0.074 & 40 & 0.49 & - & - & \\
710: & 04 & - & 35.34 & -3.50 & 4.91 & 0.082 & 21 & - & - & - & \\
711: & 08 & SL J0222.3-0446 & 35.48 & -3.80 & 4.33 & 0.081 & 29 & - & - & - & LRIS z = 0.41 \\
712: & 10 & - & 36.25 & -4.25 & 4.20 & 0.062 & 23 & - & - & - & \\
713: & 12 & SL J0224.5-0414 & 36.13 & -4.24 & 4.06 & 0.057 & 70 & 0.26 & - & - & LRIS z = 0.26 \\
714: & 15 & SL J0225.3-0441 & 36.34 & -4.70 & 3.94 & 0.091 & 34 & 0.26 & - & - & \\
715: & 16 & SL J0228.1-0450 & 37.03 & -4.84 & 3.94 & 0.072 & 31 & 0.29 & - & - & \\
716: & 17 & SL J0226.5-0401 & 36.63 & -4.02 & 3.90 & 0.079 & 37 & - & 0.34 & - & XLSSC 014 \\
717: & 19 & SL J0227.7-0450 & 36.94 & -4.85 & 3.81 & 0.064 & 43 & - & 0.29 & - & Pierre et al. (2006) \\
718: & 20 & - & 35.98 & -3.77 & 3.81 & 0.048 & 20 & - & - & - & \\
719: & 21 & SL J0228.4-0425 & 37.12 & -4.43 & 3.80 & 0.055 & 49 & - & 0.43 & - & XLSSC 012 \\
720: & 22 & SL J0225.4-0414 & 36.36 & -4.25 & 3.72 & 0.073 & 43 & 0.14 & - & - & \\
721: & 23 & SL J0222.8-0416 & 35.71 & -4.27 & 3.69 & 0.049 & 52 & 0.43,0.19,0.23 & - & - & \\
722: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
723: Lynx & 00 & - & 131.91 & 44.80 & 5.84 & 0.121 & 20 & - & - & - & \\
724: & 01 & - & 132.59 & 44.07 & 5.01 & 0.083 & 43 & - & - & - & \\
725: & 03 & - & 131.83 & 44.86 & 4.57 & 0.139 & 23 & - & - & - & \\
726: & 05 & - & 131.77 & 44.85 & 4.37 & 0.110 & 13 & - & - & - & \\
727: & 07 & - & 132.69 & 44.95 & 4.15 & 0.105 & 31 & - & - & - & \\
728: & 08 & SL J0850.5+4512 & 132.64 & 45.20 & 4.02 & 0.085 & 53 & 0.19 & 0.24(P) & - & {\tiny NSC J085029+451141,LRIS$z=0.19$} \\
729: & 09 & - & 131.47 & 44.96 & 4.02 & 0.076 & 26 & - & - & - & \\
730: & 10 & - & 133.02 & 44.14 & 4.00 & 0.108 & 23 & - & - & - & \\
731: & 12 & - & 132.37 & 44.38 & 3.90 & 0.081 & 36 & - & - & - & \\
732: & 13 & - & 132.41 & 44.37 & 3.90 & 0.072 & 31 & - & - & - & Part of n=12\\
733: & 14 & - & 132.54 & 44.07 & 3.86 & 0.066 & 48 & - & - & - & \\
734: & 15 & - & 132.81 & 44.35 & 3.77 & 0.077 & 39 & - & - & - & \\
735: & 16 & - & 132.31 & 44.30 & 3.75 & 0.072 & 44 & - & - & - & \\
736: & 17 & - & 131.40 & 44.94 & 3.74 & 0.084 & 25 & - & - & 0.15 & \\
737: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
738: COSMOS & 00 & SL J1000.7+0137 & 150.19 & 1.63 & 6.11 & 0.113 & 64 & 0.22 & 0.20(P) & - & NSC J100047+013912 \\
739: & 01 & SL J1001.4+0159 & 150.35 & 1.99 & 5.64 & 0.098 & 32 & - & 0.85(P)& - & \cite{finoguenovetal06}\\
740: & 02 & SJ J0959.6+0231 & 149.92 & 2.52 & 4.74 & 0.067 & 83 & - & 0.73(P) & - & \cite{finoguenovetal06} \\
741: & 05 & - & 149.65 & 1.55 & 3.92 & 0.078 & 47 & - & - & - & \\
742: & 07 & - & 150.19 & 2.01 & 3.88 & 0.070 & 36 & - & - & - & \\
743: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
744: \end{tabular}
745: \tablenotetext{a}{Number of moderately bright ($R_C < 22$) galaxies
746: around the halo within 2 arcmin}
747: \tablenotetext{b}{redshift obtained by FOCAS MOS}
748: \tablenotetext{c}{cluster redshift found in literatures (mainly from NED). ``P'' stands for photometric redshift.}
749: \tablenotetext{d}{redshift estimated from grouping of galaxies whose redshifts are listed on NED.}
750: \end{center}
751: \end{footnotesize}
752: \end{table*}
753:
754: \begin{table*}
755: \tabcaption{List of shear selected halos (continued from Table~\ref{tab:halocat}) }
756: \label{tab:halocat2}
757: \begin{footnotesize}
758: \begin{center}
759: \hspace*{-2.5em}
760: \begin{tabular}{llllllllllll}
761: \tableline\tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
762: Field & n & ID & RA & DEC & $\kappa$S/N & $\kappa$ & N$_g$\tablenotemark{a} & FOCAS \tablenotemark{b} & Known\tablenotemark{c} & NEDG\tablenotemark{d} & Note \\ \tableline\tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
763: Lockman & 00 & SL J1057.5+5759 & 164.39 & 58.00 & 6.28 & 0.109 & 68 & 0.60 & - & - & \\
764: & 03 & SL J1051.5+5646 & 162.88 & 56.77 & 4.97 & 0.082 & 31 & 0.33, 0.35 & - & - & \\
765: & 05 & SL J1047.3+5700 & 161.84 & 57.01 & 4.56 & 0.103 & 56 & 0.30, 0.24 & - & - & \\
766: & 06 & SL J1049.4+5655 & 162.35 & 56.93 & 4.51 & 0.095 & 47 & 0.42 & - & - & LRIS z = 0.31 \\
767: & 09 & SL J1055.4+5723 & 163.86 & 57.38 & 4.22 & 0.086 & 20 & - & - & - & LRIS z = 0.38 \\
768: & 10 & SL J1051.6+5647 & 162.92 & 56.78 & 4.20 & 0.068 & 49 & 0.33, 0.25 & - & 0.05 & part of SL J1051.5+5646 \\
769: & 11 & SL J1053.4+5720 & 163.35 & 57.34 & 4.08 & 0.064 & 50 & - & 0.34 & - & RX J1053.3+5719 \\
770: & 12 & - & 163.69 & 57.55 & 4.07 & 0.068 & 26 & - & - & - & \\
771: & 13 & - & 162.91 & 58.02 & 4.04 & 0.089 & 21 & - & - & 0.08 & \\
772: & 14 & - & 162.54 & 57.28 & 3.93 & 0.070 & 38 & - & - & - & \\
773: & 15 & SL J1048.1+5730 & 162.04 & 57.51 & 3.89 & 0.071 & 35 & 0.32 & - & - & \\
774: & 16 & - & 163.85 & 57.95 & 3.83 & 0.072 & 24 & - & - & 0.02 & \\
775: & 18 & - & 163.16 & 57.88 & 3.77 & 0.069 & 26 & - & - & - & \\
776: & 19 & - & 164.21 & 57.70 & 3.77 & 0.070 & 22 & - & - & - & \\
777: & 20 & - & 163.23 & 57.84 & 3.73 & 0.102 & 29 & - & - & - & \\
778: & 21 & - & 163.14 & 57.82 & 3.72 & 0.111 & 19 & - & - & - & \\
779: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
780: GD140 & 00 & SL J1135.6+3009 & 173.91 & 30.16 & 4.98 & 0.126 & 35 & 0.21 & - & - & \\
781: & 01 & - & 173.89 & 30.21 & 4.19 & 0.086 & 23 & - & - & - & \\
782: & 02 & - & 173.96 & 29.81 & 4.09 & 0.069 & 17 & - & - & - & \\
783: & 03 & SL J1136.3+2915 & 174.09 & 29.26 & 4.03 & 0.100 & 24 & - & - & - & LRIS z = 0.20 \\
784: & 05 & - & 174.77 & 29.89 & 3.86 & 0.111 & 26 & - & - & - & \\
785: & 06 & - & 174.86 & 30.33 & 3.83 & 0.080 & 21 & - & - & - & \\
786: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
787: PG1159-035 & 05 & SL J1201.7-0331 & 180.44 & -3.53 & 4.42 & 0.077 & 49 & 0.52 & - & - & \\
788: & 06 & - & 180.99 & -3.09 & 3.90 & 0.119 & 21 & - & - & 0.09 & \\
789: & 08 & - & 181.76 & -3.27 & 3.71 & 0.102 & 37 & - & - & - & \\
790: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
791: 13 hr Field & 00 & SL J1334.3+3728 & 203.60 & 37.47 & 4.33 & 0.128 & 74 & 0.30 & 0.48(P) & - & NSCS J133424+372822 \\
792: & 01 & SL J1335.7+3731 & 203.94 & 37.53 & 4.10 & 0.091 & 65 & 0.41 & - & - & \\
793: & 04 & SL J1337.7+3800 & 204.43 & 38.01 & 3.85 & 0.080 & 34 & 0.18 & - & - & \\
794: & 06 & - & 203.85 & 37.90 & 3.78 & 0.068 & 27 & - & - & - & \\
795: & 07 & - & 204.22 & 37.54 & 3.77 & 0.078 & 30 & - & - & - & \\
796: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
797: GTO 2deg$^2$ & 00 & SL J1602.8+4335 & 240.72 & 43.59 & 6.65 & 0.110 & 56 & 0.42 & - & - & \\
798: & 01 & SL J1603.1+4245 & 240.78 & 42.76 & 5.47 & 0.106 & 57 & - & - & - & LRIS z = 0.18 \\
799: & 02 & - & 241.82 & 43.19 & 5.17 & 0.133 & 21 & - & - & - & \\
800: & 04 & - & 241.95 & 43.60 & 4.49 & 0.093 & 17 & - & - & - & \\
801: & 07 & SL J1604.1+4239 & 241.04 & 42.65 & 4.19 & 0.083 & 39 & - & - & - & LRIS z = 0.30 \\
802: & 08 & - & 241.63 & 43.61 & 4.16 & 0.093 & 25 & - & - & - & \\
803: & 09 & SL J1605.4+4244 & 241.36 & 42.74 & 4.09 & 0.064 & 36 & 0.22 & - & - & \\
804: & 10 & - & 241.18 & 43.46 & 3.85 & 0.092 & 29 & - & - & - & \\
805: & 11 & - & 241.70 & 43.64 & 3.84 & 0.077 & 33 & - & - & - & \\
806: & 12 & SL J1603.1+4243 & 240.78 & 42.72 & 3.82 & 0.091 & 37 & - & - & - & Part of SL J1603.1+4245 \\
807: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
808: CM DRA & 04 & SL J1639.9+5708 & 249.98 & 57.15 & 4.15 & 0.073 & 32 & 0.20 & - & - & \\
809: & 06 & SL J1634.1+5639 & 248.55 & 56.66 & 3.97 & 0.104 & 31 & 0.24 & - & - & \\
810: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
811: DEEP16 & 00 & SL J1647.7+3455 & 251.94 & 34.93 & 4.30 & 0.084 & 42 & 0.26 & - & - & \\
812: & 01 & - & 253.54 & 34.98 & 4.24 & 0.078 & 24 & - & - & - & \\
813: & 02 & - & 252.36 & 35.02 & 3.75 & 0.123 & 25 & - & - & - & \\
814: & 03 & - & 251.79 & 35.04 & 3.72 & 0.087 & 21 & - & - & - & \\
815: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
816: DEEP23 & 00 & SL J2326.4+0012 & 351.61 & 0.20 & 4.41 & 0.076 & 19 & 0.28 & - & - & \\
817: & 01 & - & 351.75 & 0.00 & 4.37 & 0.095 & 20 & - & - & - & \\
818: & 02 & - & 352.33 & 0.15 & 4.27 & 0.107 & 33 & - & - & 1.38 & \\
819: & 03 & - & 352.47 & -0.06 & 4.11 & 0.079 & 34 & - & - & 0.07 & \\
820: & 04 & - & 352.22 & 0.09 & 3.87 & 0.084 & 21 & - & - & 1.37 & \\
821: & 05 & - & 353.09 & 0.04 & 3.70 & 0.066 & 22 & - & - & - & \\
822: \tableline\noalign{\smallskip}
823: \end{tabular}
824: \end{center}
825: \end{footnotesize}
826: \end{table*}
827:
828:
829: \vspace{0.3cm}
830: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=8.5cm\epsfbox{f8.eps}}}}
831: \figcaption{
832: Faint galaxy density ($\rho_{gal}$) dependence of number density of
833: secured halos (S/N $>$ 3.69) in each field. The error bars are based
834: on $\sqrt{N}$ error estimates. Solid lines shows the predicted halo
835: number density. The galaxy distribution is assumed
836: $
837: {dn \over { dz}} =
838: {\beta \over {z_\ast\Gamma[(1+\alpha)/\beta)]}}
839: \left( {z \over {z_\ast}} \right)^{\alpha}
840: \exp\left[ -\left( {z \over {z_\ast}} \right)^{\beta} \right]
841: $
842: where $\alpha=2.0$ and $\beta=1.5$ is adopted.
843: The mean redshift, $\langle z \rangle$ is related to $z_\ast$ by
844: $\langle z \rangle
845: = z_\ast \Gamma[(2+\alpha)/\beta] / \Gamma[(1+\alpha)/\beta]$
846: Three different $\langle z \rangle$ are assumed; 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2
847: (from bottom to the top solid line). \label{fig:seeingdens}}
848: \vspace{0.3cm}
849:
850: Here we compare the detected halo number density [deg$^{-2}$] with the
851: prediction of numerical simulations done by \cite{hamanaetal04},
852: who have attempted to reproduce a survey such as ours.
853: Figure~\ref{fig:seeingdens} shows the halo density of our thirteen
854: survey fields. The horizontal axis shows the density of faint galaxies
855: ($\rho_{gal}$) used for weak lensing analysis. The error bars
856: are based only on $\sqrt{N}$ estimates and do not include the effects
857: of cosmic variance. Solid lines in Figure~\ref{fig:seeingdens} show
858: the prediction of the simulation where three different mean redshifts
859: for the background galaxies are assumed (from bottom to top: 0.8, 1.0
860: and 1.2).
861:
862: Although the scatter is large, there is reasonable agreement between
863: the observations and the prediction. We also see a gradual
864: increase of the observed number density over the $\rho_{gal}$ range
865: sampled as expected. These comparisons validate our observational
866: procedures. We have, however, two outliers in
867: Figure~\ref{fig:seeingdens}. These could be caused by cosmic variance
868: or may arise from some other reasons. Further follow-up studies will
869: be important to clarify the issue.
870:
871: \section{Cluster Identification and Verification}
872:
873: Armed with the shear-selected halo catalog, we now discuss the tests
874: we have made to verify its reliability, using both spectroscopic observations
875: and comparisons with X-ray data in the fields where the overlap of
876: targets can be studied.
877:
878: \subsection{Spectroscopic Follow-up }
879:
880:
881: Because the lensing kernel (or window function) has a
882: relatively broad redshift range, the superposition of multiple low
883: mass halos with different redshifts could yield highly significant
884: weak lensing signals. Such `superposition halos' are unwelcome in a
885: mass-selected cluster catalog. In order to identify such superposition
886: halos we undertook a more comprehensive spectroscopic survey using a
887: multi-object spectrograph for selected candidates. This also
888: gives us the velocity dispersion of member galaxies, which is an
889: estimate of dynamical mass of clusters. By comparing dynamical mass
890: with weak lensing mass we will be able to discuss the dynamical state
891: of the clusters (Hamana et al. in preparation).
892:
893: We used the FOCAS spectrograph on Subaru whose multi-object mode
894: permits the simultaneous observation of 25 - 30 galaxies in the field
895: of a particular halo. We used the 150/mm grating and a SY47 order
896: sorting filter. This configuration spans the wavelength range
897: $4700-9400$\AA\ \citep{kashikawaetal02}. Target selection was based
898: primarily on apparent magnitude and the color information was used
899: when available. The exposure time was 45 $\sim$ 70
900: minutes depending on the magnitude of the selected galaxies and the
901: observing conditions. The spectroscopic data was reduced using
902: standard IRAF procedures (Hamana et al. in
903: preparation). Figure~\ref{fig:focasobs} shows a typical FOCAS
904: observation where the target is identified as a $z$ = 0.6 cluster.
905:
906: \begin{figure*}
907: \begin{center}
908: \includegraphics[height=8.5cm]{f9.eps}
909: \figcaption{
910: (a) $\kappa$ S/N contour map of the most significant halo in the
911: Lockman field (SL J1057.5+5759) superimposed on the $R_c$-band image
912: taken by Suprime-Cam. Contours start at a S/N = 2 2 with an interval of
913: 1. Small circles show the positions of observed galaxies by FOCAS
914: with the redshifts obtained. (b) Redshift `cone diagram' of the
915: observed galaxies.
916: \label{fig:focasobs}}
917: \vspace{0.3cm}
918: \end{center}
919: \end{figure*}
920:
921: Since May 2004 we have observed 26 halos from the secure sample
922: with FOCAS. Higher priority was given to more significant halos,
923: except in the early stages of program (for example in the Lynx and
924: PG1159-035 fields) when the follow-up strategy was still being
925: evaluated. Each of the 26 halos has been reliably identified with a
926: cluster of galaxies. The redshift so determined is shown in the column
927: labeled ``FOCAS'' of Table~\ref{tab:halocat},\ref{tab:halocat2}.
928:
929:
930: In parallel with the FOCAS follow-up, long slit observations with
931: Keck/LRIS have been carried out to enlarge the sample of redshifts as
932: quickly as possible. We have to keep in mind that this method cannot
933: discriminate the projected samples, and some statistical consideration
934: is necessary in dealing with the data for further studies.
935: A complete discussion of that aspect of our program is discussed in a
936: separate paper (Green et al, in prep.). In the ``Note'' column of
937: Table~\ref{tab:halocat},\ref{tab:halocat2}, we list the preliminary
938: Keck/LRIS results as ``LRIS z = zvalue'' whose identification is
939: already robust (e.g. at least two galaxy redshifts agree) including
940: one of the halos in the XMM-Wide field (SL J0222.3-0446, $z$=0.41)
941: where we discuss the reliability of our catalog (see section
942: \ref{sec:reliability}).
943:
944: \subsection{Correlation with Published Data}
945:
946: In addition to undertaking our own spectroscopic observations, we
947: also searched the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED) for clusters
948: and groups with published redshifts close to the position of our detected halos.
949: We included recently-published cluster catalogs in the XMM-wide survey
950: by \cite{valtchanovetal04}, \cite{willisetal05} and \cite{pierreetal06}
951: ({\bf VWP} data hereafter). In making assignments, we considered
952: a cluster to be associated with a halo if the angular separation was less
953: than 2 arcmin and the 3 dimensional distance less than 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc.
954: 13 out of 100 halos can be identified in this way with
955: rich clusters in the literature and the published
956: redshift is shown in the column labeled ``Known'' of
957: Table~\ref{tab:halocat},\ref{tab:halocat2}.
958: Three of these thirteen clusters were also observed
959: by FOCAS in multi-object mode and we note that the mean FOCAS
960: redshift is different from the published value for these systems
961: ($\delta z = 0.02 \sim 0.18$).
962: These discrepancies can be explained by the fact that NED redshift of
963: these clusters are all photometric, which have larger
964: uncertainties. Therefore, we adopted the FOCAS redshifts for
965: these three cases.
966: We searched the NED galaxy group catalog in the same manner, but no
967: group matched any of our halos.
968:
969: Next, we searched for individual galaxies with published redshifts within
970: 3 arcmin of our halos. If suitable data was found, we grouped them together
971: using a ``friend of friend'' algorithm with a linking length of
972: 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. If we found a clustering of more than two members,
973: we calculated the average redshift and the mean astrometric position.
974: Using the same proximity criterion above, we assigned a redshift
975: to 14 further halos. These are shown in the column labeled ``NEDG''.
976:
977: In order to estimate the probability of a chance coincidence of the
978: matching procedures, we first randomized the position of the detected
979: halos in the field, and applied the same matching procedure described
980: above to the randomized halo catalog. This process suggests that
981: the probability of a chance coincidence is roughly 10 \% and 25 \% for
982: the cluster and galaxy clustering searches, respectively. Clearly care
983: should be taken in analyzing such data.
984: The total number of reliably identified clusters are 41 (out of 100
985: in Table~\ref{tab:halocat},\ref{tab:halocat2}) where we do not include
986: those identified by ``NEDG'' galaxies because the
987: chance coincidence is not negligible. We assign ID labels only for
988: these reliable halos in the tables.
989:
990: \subsection{Reliability of the Shear-Selected Halo Catalog}
991: \label{sec:reliability}
992: We now turn to the important question of the evaluating the reliability
993: of our shear-selected catalog. We will do this by examining both
994: the success rate of our identifications and by comparing with X-ray samples
995: obtained via the XMM-Wide field survey. VWP have confirmed
996: spectroscopic redshifts for 28 X-ray selected clusters in the 3.5
997: deg$^2$ survey field. Their locations are plotted as squares on
998: Figure~\ref{fig:saclay_halomap}. Our secure
999: sample of 15 shear-selected halos with S/N $>$ 3.69 is plotted as
1000: solid circles.
1001: Those we have spectroscopically confirmed using Subaru's FOCAS
1002: and/or Keck LRIS are marked by large open circles. We find that three
1003: halos
1004: (1, 16 and 23) are confirmed as clusters by FOCAS and are not
1005: reported in VWP.
1006:
1007: Among our 15 shear-selected halo samples, only three (4, 10 and 20)
1008: have yet to be identified. This identification success rate (80 \%)
1009: can be regarded as a lower limit given future observations may yet
1010: locate an associated cluster. Although affected by small number
1011: statistics, this minimum efficiency is already higher than expected
1012: by simulation
1013: studies\citep{whiteetal02,hamanaetal04,hennawiandspergel05}.
1014:
1015: It is interesting to compare our identification success rate with
1016: those found in the {\it GaBoDS} survey. \cite{maturietal06} found 14
1017: significant halos in their 18 deg$^2$ area. Among them, 5 halos
1018: turn out to be {\it known} clusters of galaxies, 2 seem to have
1019: associated {\it light} concentrations but no spectroscopic confirmation, and
1020: the remaining {\it uncertain} 7 (50 \%) had no apparent counterpart in either
1021: optical nor X-ray data. \cite{schirmeretal06} undertook a search
1022: on the same data adopting a different peak selection algorithm and
1023: a lower detection threshold. They found 158 ``possible mass concentration''
1024: on the 18 deg$^2$ field. If those halos are divided into the same classes
1025: as above ({\it known, light, uncertain}), the ratio is almost the
1026: same as \cite{maturietal06}. Regardless, almost half of the {\it GaBoDS}
1027: halos could be considered uncertain at this point.
1028:
1029: Meanwhile, we find 15 halos in a 2.24 deg$^2$ field (XMM-wide) and
1030: show that 80 \% of have been already identified as clusters.
1031: It is too early to make any definite conclusion because their
1032: spectroscopic is underway. However, our (tentatively) higher success
1033: rate could be explained at least in part by the larger number density
1034: of faint galaxies, $\rho_{gal}$, usable for the weak lensing
1035: analysis owing to larger aperture and better average seeing.
1036: In the case of {\it GaBoDS}, $\rho_{gal}$ spans from 6 to 28
1037: arcmin$^{-2}$ depending on the field; the average value is 11
1038: arcmin$^{-2}$. This is generally smaller than our
1039: $\rho_{gal}$ shown in Table~\ref{tab:survey_field}. As a result one
1040: can expect a lower angular resolution of the $\kappa$ map, reducing
1041: the S/N ratio for a fixed smoothing scale and possibly an increased
1042: degree of contamination in the resulting halo catalog.
1043: Another possibility to explain the increased contamination is that
1044: their sample consists of a combination of different sets of catalogs,
1045: each of which is selected by different methods. This could decrease
1046: the significance threshold effectively, and could introduce more false
1047: peaks.
1048:
1049: \subsection{Superposition of Multiple Clusters}
1050: \cite{hamanaetal04} estimated, based on their simulation, that the
1051: halo superposition rate in survey such as ours should be roughly 3 \% -
1052: a small but not negligible effect. A longslit spectroscopic survey, such
1053: as that undertaken with LRIS (Green et al, in prep) might be poorly-suited
1054: for locating such cases. However, the FOCAS multi-object survey reported
1055: here should reliably find them. In fact, we have found
1056: three apparent superposition halos (SL J0222.8-0416,
1057: SL J1051.5+5456 and SL J1047.3+5700) out of 26 examined.
1058: The overlap rate is broadly consistent with expectation considering
1059: the small number so far sampled.
1060:
1061: \section{Conclusions and Future Prospects}
1062:
1063: We have introduced a new Subaru imaging survey and described
1064: techniques for locating and verifying shear-selected halos. Across
1065: a search area of 16.72 deg$^2$ we have found 100 halos
1066: whose $\kappa$ S/N exceeds 3.69. We have described the first
1067: phase of a detailed follow-up campaign based on multi-object spectroscopy
1068: of 26 halos using FOCAS on the Subaru telescope. A later paper in this
1069: series (Green et al, in prep) will extend the spectroscopic survey to
1070: the full sample using a longslit approach.
1071:
1072: Detailed studies on one of our fields, the XMM-wide field, show that
1073: 80\% of the shear selected 15 halos in the 2.2 deg$^2$ area can be
1074: confirmed as genuine clusters of galaxies. 10 overlap with X-ray
1075: detections and two are new systems confirmed spectroscopically. The
1076: overall success rate and reliability of our sample provides convincing
1077: proof that, with care, a weak lensing survey can provide a large
1078: sample of mass-selected halos.
1079:
1080: We compare our success rate
1081: and the reliability of our catalog with that of the {\it GaBoDS} survey
1082: and conclude a major advantage of our approach is the superior
1083: imaging depth which leads to a high surface density of usable
1084: galaxies. This suggests future, more ambitious, surveys for
1085: shear-selected halos will be more effective if undertaken with
1086: large aperture telescopes.
1087:
1088: It is interesting to use our results to estimate the requirements
1089: for a future survey motivated by the need to constrain dark
1090: energy. \cite{kolbetal06} discuss hypothetical missions which
1091: would aim to analyze the redshift distribution $N(z)$ of 10,000
1092: clusters. Figure~\ref{fig:seeingdens} shows that our
1093: survey technique typically
1094: finds 5 halos deg$^{-2}$. Because the field size of Suprime-Cam is
1095: $\sim$ 0.25 deg$^2$, it takes two hours to cover 1 deg$^2$
1096: assuming the exposure time of 30 minutes of each field as adopted in
1097: this study. A survey of 10,000 clusters would be prohibitive even
1098: in terms of imaging alone ($\sim$ 500 clear nights) even before
1099: contemplating the follow-up spectroscopy.
1100: The Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) project \citep{hsc06} has been proposed
1101: to remedy this shortcoming. HSC is expected to have a field of view ten
1102: times larger than Suprime-Cam while maintaining the same image
1103: quality. This new facility will makes the 2000 deg$^2$ scale imaging
1104: survey within a reasonable number of clear nights.
1105:
1106: Spectroscopic follow-up might be enabled by
1107: the proposed prime focus multi object optical spectrograph WFMOS
1108: (Wide Field Fiber Multi Object Spectrograph) whose field is 1.5 deg$^2$
1109: in diameter. Typically we can expect $\simeq$10 shear-selected clusters
1110: in each spectroscopic field. With only 20 targets per halo, only a
1111: small fraction of the several thousand fibers envisaged for WFMOS
1112: need be allocated to the halo verification program.
1113:
1114:
1115: \begin{figure*}
1116: \begin{center}
1117: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfysize=4.151cm\epsfbox{f10.eps}}}}
1118: \figcaption{
1119: DEEP02 field $\kappa$-S/N map (red contour) and
1120: surface number density of moderately bright (21$<R_c<$23) galaxies
1121: (blue contour). Legends are the same as Fig~\ref{fig:saclay_halomap}.
1122: \label{fig:deep02_halomap}}
1123: \end{center}
1124: \end{figure*}
1125:
1126: \begin{figure*}
1127: \begin{center}
1128: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfysize=9.296cm\epsfbox{f11.eps}}}}
1129: \figcaption{
1130: SXDS field $\kappa$-S/N map and surface density of galaxies.
1131: (blue contour).
1132: \label{fig:sxds_halomap}}
1133: \end{center}
1134: \end{figure*}
1135:
1136: \begin{figure*}
1137: \begin{center}
1138: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfysize=11.00cm\epsfbox{f12.eps}}}}
1139: \figcaption{
1140: Lynx field $\kappa$-S/N map and surface density of galaxies.
1141: \label{fig:lynx_halomap}}
1142: \end{center}
1143: \end{figure*}
1144:
1145: \begin{figure*}
1146: \begin{center}
1147: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfysize=10.507cm\epsfbox{f13.eps}}}}
1148: \figcaption{
1149: COSMOS field $\kappa$-S/N map and surface density of galaxies.
1150: \label{fig:cosmos_halomap}}
1151: \end{center}
1152: \end{figure*}
1153:
1154: \begin{figure*}
1155: \begin{center}
1156: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfysize=10.264cm\epsfbox{f14.eps}}}}
1157: \figcaption{
1158: Lockman field $\kappa$-S/N map and surface density of galaxies.
1159: \label{fig:lockman_halomap}}
1160: \end{center}
1161: \end{figure*}
1162:
1163: \begin{figure*}
1164: \begin{center}
1165: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfysize=9.458cm\epsfbox{f15.eps}}}}
1166: \figcaption{
1167: GD140 field $\kappa$-S/N map and surface density of galaxies.
1168: \label{fig:gd140_halomap}}
1169: \end{center}
1170: \end{figure*}
1171:
1172:
1173: \begin{figure*}
1174: \begin{center}
1175: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfysize=9.466cm\epsfbox{f16.eps}}}}
1176: \figcaption{
1177: PG1159-035 field $\kappa$-S/N map and surface density of galaxies.
1178: \label{fig:pg1159-035_halomap}}
1179: \end{center}
1180: \end{figure*}
1181:
1182:
1183: \begin{figure*}
1184: \begin{center}
1185: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfysize=9.462cm\epsfbox{f17.eps}}}}
1186: \figcaption{
1187: 13 hr field $\kappa$-S/N map and surface density of galaxies.
1188: \label{fig:deep_survey_halomap}}
1189: \end{center}
1190: \end{figure*}
1191:
1192: \begin{figure*}
1193: \begin{center}
1194: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfysize=9.465cm\epsfbox{f18.eps}}}}
1195: \figcaption{
1196: GTO 2 square degree field $\kappa$-S/N map and surface density of galaxies.
1197: \label{fig:gto_halomap}}
1198: \end{center}
1199: \end{figure*}
1200:
1201:
1202: \begin{figure*}
1203: \begin{center}
1204: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfysize=9.466cm\epsfbox{f19.eps}}}}
1205: \figcaption{
1206: CM DRA field $\kappa$-S/N map and surface density of galaxies.
1207: \label{fig:cm_dra_halomap}}
1208: \end{center}
1209: \end{figure*}
1210:
1211: \begin{figure*}
1212: \begin{center}
1213: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfysize=4.326cm\epsfbox{f20.eps}}}}
1214: \figcaption{
1215: DEEP16 field $\kappa$-S/N map and surface density of galaxies.
1216: \label{fig:deep16_halomap}}
1217: \end{center}
1218: \end{figure*}
1219:
1220: \begin{figure*}
1221: \begin{center}
1222: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfysize=4.145cm\epsfbox{f21.eps}}}}
1223: \figcaption{
1224: DEEP23 field $\kappa$-S/N map and surface density of galaxies.
1225: \label{fig:deep23_halomap}}
1226: \end{center}
1227: \end{figure*}
1228:
1229: \acknowledgments
1230: We are very grateful to Subaru astronomers: Y. Oyama, K. Aoki
1231: and T. Hattori for their dedicated supports of the FOCAS observing.
1232: Numerical computations presented in this paper were carried out at
1233: the Astronomical Data Center (ADC) and at the Center for Computational
1234: Astrophysics (CfCA) of the National Astronomical Observatory of
1235: Japan. This work is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific
1236: Research (Kaken-hi) of Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
1237: (JSPS): Project number 15340065 (SM\&TH) and 17740116 (TH) .
1238:
1239: \begin{thebibliography}{999}
1240:
1241: \bibitem[Allen et al.(2003)]{allenetal03}
1242: Allen, S.W., Schmidt, R.W., Fabian, A.C., Ebeling, H. 2003 \mnras 342,
1243: 287
1244:
1245: \bibitem[Allen et al.(2004)]{allenetal04}
1246: Allen, S.W., Schmidt, R.W., Ebeling, H., Fabian, A.C., van Speybroeck,
1247: L. 2004 \mnras, 353, 457
1248:
1249: \bibitem[Becker et al.(2007)]{beckeretal07}
1250: Becker, M.R. et al. 2007 submitted to ApJ (astro-ph/0704.3614)
1251:
1252: \bibitem[Bernstein \& Jarvis (2002)]{bernsteinandjarvis02}
1253: Bernstein, G. \& Jarvis, M. 2002, \aj, 123, 583
1254:
1255: \bibitem[B\"ohringer et al.(2001)]{bohringeretal01}
1256: B\"ohringer, H. et al. 2001 A\&A, 369, 826
1257:
1258: \bibitem[Davis et al.(2003)]{davisetal03}
1259: Davis, M., Faber, S.M., Newman, J. et al. 2003, SPIE, 4834, 161
1260:
1261: \bibitem[Dietrich et al.(2007)]{dietrichetal07}
1262: Dietrich, J.P., Erben, T., Lamer, G., Schneider, P., Schwope, A.,
1263: Hartlap, J., Maturi, M (2007) A\&A in press (astro-ph/0705.3455)
1264:
1265: \bibitem[Erben et al.(2001)]{erbenetal01}
1266: Erben, T., van Waerbeke, L., Bertin, E., Mellier, \& Y. \& Schneider, P.
1267: 2001, A\&A, 366, 717
1268:
1269: \bibitem[Finoguenov et al. (2006)]{finoguenovetal06}
1270: Finoguenov, A., Guzzo, L., Hasinger, G., Scoville, N.Z. et al. (2006)
1271: ApJS in press (astro-ph/0612360)
1272:
1273: \bibitem[Gladders \& Yee(2000)]{gladdersetal00}
1274: Gladders, M.D. \& Yee, H.K.C. 2000, \aj, 120, 2148
1275:
1276: \bibitem[Goto et al.(2002)]{gotoetal02}
1277: Goto, T. et al. 2002, \aj, 123, 1807
1278:
1279: \bibitem[Hamana et al.(2003)]{hamanaetal03}
1280: Hamana, T., Miyazaki, S. et al. 2003, \apj, 597, 98
1281:
1282: \bibitem[Hamana et al.(2004)]{hamanaetal04}
1283: Hamana, T., Takada, M., Yoshida, N. 2004, \mnras, 350, 893
1284:
1285: \bibitem[Hennawi \& Spergel(2005)]{hennawiandspergel05}
1286: Hennawi, J.F. \& Spergel, D.N. 2005 \apj, 624, 59
1287:
1288: \bibitem[Henry (2000)]{henry00}
1289: Henry, J.P. 2000, \apj, 534, 565
1290:
1291: \bibitem[Hetterscheidt et al.(2005)]{hetterscheidtetal05}
1292: Hetterscheidt, M., Erben, T., Schneider, P., Maoli, R., van Waerbeke,
1293: L., Mellier, Y. 2005, A\&A, 442, 43.
1294:
1295: \bibitem[Heymans et al.(2006)]{heymansetal06}
1296: Heymans, C. et al. 2006, \mnras, 368, 1323
1297:
1298: \bibitem[Hoekstra et al.(1998)]{hoekstraetal98}
1299: Hokekstra, H., Franx, M., Kuijken, K., Squires, G. 1998 \apj, 504. 636
1300:
1301: \bibitem[Hoekstra (2004)]{hoekstra04}
1302: Hoekstra, H. 2004, \mnras, 347, 1337
1303:
1304: \bibitem[Ikebe et al.(2002)]{ikebeetal02}
1305: Ikebe, Y., Reiprich, T.H., B\"ohringer, H., Tanaka, Y., Kitayama,
1306: T. 2002 A\&A, 383, 773
1307:
1308: \bibitem[Jenkins et al.(2001)]{jenkinsetal01}
1309: Jenkins, A., Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M., Colberg, J. M., Cole, S.,
1310: Evrard, A. E., Couchman, H. M. P. \& Yoshida, N. 2001, \mnras,
1311: 324, 450
1312:
1313: \bibitem[Kaiser \& Squires(1993)]{kaiserandsquires93}
1314: Kaiser, N. \& Squires, G. 1993, \apj, 404, 441
1315:
1316: \bibitem[Kaiser et al.(1995)]{ksb95}
1317: Kaiser, N., Squires, G. \& Broadhurst, T. 1995, \apj, 449, 460
1318:
1319: \bibitem[Kaiser et al.(1999)]{kaiseretal99}
1320: Kaiser, N., Wilson, G., Luppino, G., Dahle, H. 1999 submitted to PASP
1321: (astro-ph/9907229)
1322:
1323: \bibitem[Kashikawa et al.(2002)]{kashikawaetal02}
1324: Kashikawa, N. et al. 2002, \pasj, 54, 819
1325:
1326: \bibitem[Kolb et al.(2006)]{kolbetal06}
1327: Kolb et al. 2006, US Dark Energy Task Force Report
1328:
1329: \bibitem[Landolt (1992)]{landolt92}
1330: Landolt, A.U. 1992, \aj, 104, 340
1331:
1332: \bibitem[Levine et al.(2002)]{levineetal02}
1333: Levine, E.S., Schulz, A.E., White, M. 2002 \apj, 577, 569
1334:
1335: \bibitem[Luppino \& Kaiser(1997)]{lk97}
1336: Luppino, G.A. \& Kaiser, N. 1997, \apjl, 475, 20L
1337:
1338: \bibitem[Majewski et al.(1994)]{majewskietal94}
1339: Majewski, S.R., Kron, R.G., Koo, D.C., Bershady, M.A. 1994, \pasp,
1340: 106, 1258
1341:
1342: \bibitem[Massey et al.(2007)]{massey07}
1343: Massey, R.J, Rhodes, J., Ellis, R.S. et al 2007, Nature, 445, 286
1344:
1345: \bibitem[Maturi et al.(2006)]{maturietal06}
1346: Maturi, M., Schirmer, M., Meneghetti, M., Bartelmann, M., Moscardini,
1347: L. 2006, A\&A in press (astro-ph/0607254)
1348:
1349: \bibitem[Miyazaki et al.(2002a)]{miyazakietal02a}
1350: Miyazaki, S., Hamana, T., Shimasaku, Furusawa, H., Doi, M., Hamabe,
1351: M., Imi, K., Kimura, M., Komiyama, Y., Nakata, F., Okada, N., Okamura,
1352: S., Ouchi, M., Sekiguchi, M., Yagi, M., Yasuda, N. 2002a \apjl, 580, L97
1353:
1354: \bibitem[Miyazaki et al.(2002b)]{miyazakietal02b}
1355: Miyazaki, S., Komiyama, Y., Okada, N., Imi, K., Yagi, M., Yasuda, N.,
1356: Sekiguchi, M., Kimura, M, Doi, M., Hamabe, M., Nakata, F., Shimasaku,
1357: K., Furusawa, H., Ouchi, M. \& Okamura, S. 2002b, \pasj, 54, 833
1358:
1359: \bibitem[Miyazaki et al.(2006)]{hsc06}
1360: Miyazaki, S., Komiyama, Y., Nakaya, H., Doi, Y., Furusawa, H.,
1361: Gillingham, P., Kamata Y., Takeshi, K., Nariai, K. 2006, SPIE, 6269, 9
1362:
1363: \bibitem[Pierre et al.(2004)]{pierre04}
1364: Pierre, M. et al. 2004 J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys, 09, 011
1365:
1366: \bibitem[Pierre et al.(2006)]{pierreetal06}
1367: Pierre, M., Pacaud, F. et al. 2006, \mnras, 372, 591
1368:
1369: \bibitem[Postman et al.(1996)]{postmanetal96}
1370: Postman, M., Lubin, L.M., Gunn, J.E., Oke, J.B., Hoessel, J.G.,
1371: Schneider, D.P., Christensen, J.A. 1996, \aj, 111, 615
1372:
1373: \bibitem[Press et al.(1993)]{pressetal93}
1374: Press, W.H., Flannery, B.P., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T. 1993,
1375: ``Numerical Recipes in C'', ISBN-13: 9780521431088
1376:
1377: \bibitem[Reiprich \& B\"ohringer(2002)]{reiprichetal02}
1378: Reprich, T.H. \& B\"ohringer, H. 2002 \apj, 567, 716
1379:
1380: \bibitem[Schirmer et al.(2006)]{schirmeretal06}
1381: Schirmer, M., Erben, T., Hetterscheidt, M., Schneider, P. 2006,
1382: Submitted to A\&A (astro-ph/0607022)
1383:
1384: \bibitem[Smail et al. (1997)]{smail97}
1385: Smail, I., Ellis, R.S., Dressler, A. et al. 1997 \apj, 479, 70
1386:
1387: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2005)]{smithetal05}
1388: Smith, G.P., Kneib, J., Smail, I., Mazzotta, P., Ebeling, H., Czoske,
1389: O. 2005, \mnras, 359, 417
1390:
1391: \bibitem[Valtchanov et al.(2004)]{valtchanovetal04}
1392: Valtchanov, I. et al. 2004, A\&A, 423, 75
1393:
1394: \bibitem[Wang et al.(2004)]{wangetal04}
1395: Wang, S., Khoury, J., Haiman, Z. May, M. 2004 PhRvD, 70, 123008
1396:
1397: \bibitem[Van Waerbeke et al.(2000)]{waerbeke00}
1398: Van Waerbeke, L., Mellier, Y., Erben, T. et al. 2000, A\&A,
1399: 358, 30
1400:
1401: \bibitem[White et al.(2002)]{whiteetal02}
1402: White, M., van Waerbeke, L, Mackey, J. 2002, \apj, 575, 640
1403:
1404: \bibitem[Willis et al.(2005)]{willisetal05}
1405: Willis, J.P., Pacaud, F., Valtchanov, I. et al 2005, \mnras, 363, 675
1406:
1407: \bibitem[Wittman et al.(2001)]{wittmanetal01}
1408: Wittman, D., Tyson, J.A., Margoniner, V.E., Cohen, J.G., Dell'Antonio,
1409: I.P. 2001 \apjl, 557, L89.
1410:
1411: \bibitem[Wittman et al.(2002)]{wittmanetal02}
1412: Wittman, D, Tyson, J.A., Dell'Antonio, I.P. et al. 2002, Proc, SPIE, 4836, 73
1413:
1414: \bibitem[Wittman et al.(2006)]{wittmanetal06}
1415: Wittman, D, Dell'Antonio, I.P, Hughes, J.P. et al. 2006, \apj, 643, 128
1416:
1417:
1418: \end{thebibliography}
1419:
1420: \newpage
1421:
1422: \appendix
1423:
1424: \section{Probability to obtain spurious peaks due to insufficient
1425: correction of the PSF anisotropy} \label{sec:imagequality}
1426:
1427: \vspace{0.3cm}
1428: The shear induced by massive cluster of galaxies is expected to be
1429: 7$\sim$ 10 \%. This is actually larger than raw ellipticities due to
1430: PSF anisotropy (2 $\sim$ 4 \% refer to Fig.~\ref{fig:fwhmee}), but the
1431: difference is not so significant. Therefore, the correction of the
1432: anisotropy is very important to make a precise kappa map. Here, we
1433: examine the PSF anisotropy Suprime-Cam, and evaluate the effect of
1434: imperfect correction in this work.
1435:
1436: \vspace{0.3cm}
1437: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=17cm\epsfbox{f22.eps}}}}
1438: \figcaption{Two examples of ellipticities field. Orientation of each bar
1439: shows the direction of the major axis, and the length scales as its
1440: ellipticity. No subtraction of the offset is made. Arrow on left top
1441: of the panel shows the size of 10 \% ellipticity. The seeing was 0.65
1442: arcsec (FWHM).
1443: \label{fig:starfield_e_examples}}
1444: \vspace{0.3cm}
1445:
1446: In order to characterize the anisotropy of the Suprime-Cam images, we
1447: obtained sequences of i'-band short exposures (1 min) of dense stellar
1448: fields with various telescope pointings over one night long.
1449: The seeing was mostly $\sim$ 0.65 arcsec (FWHM).
1450: The PSF anisotropy is approximated as an elliptical, and the field
1451: position dependence of the ellpticities are investigated.
1452: Two examples of such ellipticity fields are shown in
1453: Fig.~\ref{fig:starfield_e_examples}. General tendency
1454: that we note is that the fields can be represented as a
1455: super-position of (1) the radial field at four corners (almost invariant)
1456: and (2) almost unidirectional field (variable).
1457: The variable components is most likely due to the telescope shaking
1458: whereas the invariant component can be explained by the optical
1459: aberration of the corrector. Slight asymmetry of the radial component
1460: is visible (i.e. ellipticities near the lower left corner is larger
1461: than other corners), and this would be a sign of imperfect optical
1462: alignment.
1463:
1464: \vspace{0.3cm}
1465: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=17cm\epsfbox{f23.eps}}}}
1466: \figcaption{(a) Ellipticities of stars azimuthally averaged over the
1467: field of view (0.65 arcsec seeing i'-band 60 sec exposure).
1468: Open circle and square show the results of ``before'' and ``after''
1469: the anisotropy correction, respectively (see text).
1470: Sold squares show expected ellipticities from perfectly aligned optics
1471: under the seeing of 0.65 arcsec.
1472: (b)Peak distribution function of kappa S/N map created by
1473: residual of anisotropy corrections.
1474: \label{fig:radreal}}
1475: \vspace{0.3cm}
1476:
1477: We also note that the discontinuity of ellipticities is not visible
1478: across the boundary of the CCDs, and the ellipticities can be
1479: represented as a single continuous function of field position.
1480: We adopt 5-th order polynomial function here. In order to simulate the
1481: actual science field analysis, we randomly select controls stars and
1482: ``galaxy role'' stars from the star catalogs with an appropriate
1483: density; 2 arcmin$^{-1}$ and 40 arcmin$^{-1}$, respectively. Using the
1484: control stars, we obtain the best fit coefficients of the polynomial,
1485: and the anisotropy of ``galaxy role'' stars is corrected using
1486: Eqn.~\ref{Psmcorrection}. Because the intrinsic ellipticities of
1487: ``galaxy role'' stars is all zero, the residual ellipticities after
1488: the correction is a estimate of incompleteness of the correction.
1489: Fig~\ref{fig:radreal}(a) shows the azimuthally averaged
1490: ellipticities of stars; before the correction, the typical 3 \% raw
1491: ellipticity is seen. It might be interesting to note that the
1492: ellipticities of 3 \%. can be induced by rms pointing error of
1493: merely 0.1 arcsec under the seeing of 0.65 arcsec. The ellipticities
1494: is reduced down to about 0.75 \% after the correction. Beyond the
1495: field angle of 18 arcmin, the correction does not work fine and we
1496: decided to eliminate the field r $>$ 18 from lensing analysis;
1497: which, however, results in only a few percent loss of FOV.
1498:
1499: We estimated a PSF anisotropy caused by the optical aberration using a
1500: ray-tracing code, {\it zemax}. The calculated PSF is convolved with
1501: 0.65 arcsec FWHM gaussian, and the shape is evaluated by
1502: elliptical. The result is shown in filled square in
1503: Fig~\ref{fig:radreal}(a). Compared with this ideal case, the observed
1504: ellipticities is large even after the correction. This shows a limit of
1505: the adoption of single polynomial function as a representatives of the
1506: PSF anisotropy, where the residual is still locally correlated
1507: correlated and not completely random. We now want to evaluate the
1508: impact of the incompleteness onto the $\kappa$ S/N map.
1509: The map is created based by the residual ellipticities after the
1510: correction. We simulate the galaxy ellipticities using the following
1511: ``conversion'' formula \citep{hoekstra04},
1512: \begin{equation}
1513: \label{conversion}
1514: e^{gal} = \frac{P_{sm}^{gal}}{P_{sm}^{*}}e^{*},
1515: \end{equation}
1516: which is essentially a sensitivity correction against the PSF
1517: anisotropy. This is necessary because galaxies are larger and their
1518: shape is more insensitive to the deformation compared with stars.
1519: We evaluate $\frac{P_{sm}^{gal}}{P_{sm}^{*}}$ with
1520: $\frac{\langle Tr(P_{sm}^{gal})\rangle}{\langle Tr(P_{sm}^{*})\rangle}$
1521: where we adopt
1522: $\langle Tr(P_{sm}^{gal}) \rangle = 0.1 $ which is a typical value
1523: under the typical 0.7 arcsec seeing. Since the $\langle
1524: Tr(P_{sm}^{*})\rangle \sim 0.2 $
1525: here, the conversion factor is roughly $\frac{1}{2}$. We omit
1526: $P_{\gamma}$ correction because it cancels out in this case when we
1527: calculate the S/N. We created twelve such maps from independent
1528: exposures, and co-added the peak distribution functions to obtain
1529: Fig~\ref{fig:radreal}(b). It is obvious that the incompleteness of the
1530: anisotropy correction is quite unlikely to create any significant
1531: (say S/N $>$ 3) fake peaks.
1532:
1533: \end{document}
1534:
1535:
1536:
1537:
1538:
1539:
1540:
1541:
1542:
1543:
1544:
1545: