1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 June 21
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: %% USE THIS FOR SUBMISSION TO ApJ
19: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
20:
21: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
22:
23: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
24:
25: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
26:
27: %% USE THIS FOR ASTRO_PH AND GENERAL USE!
28: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
29:
30: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
31: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
32: %% use the longabstract style option.
33:
34: %%\documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
35:
36: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
37: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
38: %% the \begin{document} command.
39: %%
40: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
41: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
42: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
43: %% for information.
44:
45: \newcommand{\myemail}{rjm@astro.caltech.edu}
46: \newcommand{\rmd}{{\rm d}}
47: \newcommand{\sn}{S{\rm /}N}
48: \newcommand{\com}[1] {{\bf #1}}
49: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.}
50: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}
51: \newcommand{\cf}{{\it c.f.}}
52: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
53: \newcommand{\etc}{{\it etc.}}
54: %\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
55: %\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
56: %\newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
57: %\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
58: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.99}
59: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.01}
60: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.75}
61: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb} % Better maths support & more symbols
62: \long\def\symbolfootnote[#1]#2{\begingroup % Use symbols instead of numbers for footnotes
63: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}\footnote[#1]{#2}\endgroup}
64: \def\multidrizzle{{\tt MultiDrizzle}}
65:
66:
67: \slugcomment{~}
68:
69: \shorttitle{Weak lensing in strong lensing regimes}
70: \shortauthors{R.\ Massey \& D.\ M.\ Goldberg}
71:
72: \begin{document}
73:
74: \title{Weak lensing ellipticities in a strong lensing regime}
75: \author{Richard Massey\altaffilmark{1} \& David M.\ Goldberg\altaffilmark{2}
76: \altaffiltext{1}{California Institute of Technology, 1200 East California Boulevard,
77: Pasadena, CA 91125, U.S.A.}
78: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street,
79: Philadelphia, PA 19104, U.S.A.}
80: %\altaffiltext{$\dagger$}{Email address: {\tt\myemail}\\}
81: }
82:
83: \begin{abstract}
84:
85: It is now routine to measure the weak gravitational lensing shear
86: signal from the mean ellipticity of distant galaxies. However,
87: conversion between ellipticity and shear assumes local linearity of
88: the lensing potential (\ie\ that the spatial derivatives of the shear
89: are small), and this condition is not satisfied in some of the most
90: interesting regions of the sky. We extend a derivation of lensing
91: equations to include higher order terms, and assess the level of
92: biases introduced by assuming that first-order weak lensing theory
93: holds in a relatively strong shear regime. We find that, even in a
94: worst-case scenario, a fully linear analysis is accurate to within
95: $1\%$ outside $\sim 1.07$ times the Einstein radius of a lens, by
96: deriving an analytic function that can be used to estimate the
97: applicability of any first-order analysis. The effect is too small to
98: explain the disc\-repancy between weak- and strong-lensing estimates of
99: the mass of the bullet cluster, and should not impact cluster surveys
100: for the forseeable future. In fact, it means that arclets can be used
101: to measure shears closer to a cluster core than has been generally
102: appreciated. However, at the level of accuracy demanded by future
103: lensing surveys, this bias ought to be considered in measure\-ments of
104: the inner slope of cluster mass distributions and the small-scale end
105: of the mass power spectrum. Both of these are central in determining
106: the relationship between baryonic and dark matter.
107:
108: \end{abstract}
109:
110: \keywords{gravitational lensing}
111:
112: \section{Introduction}
113:
114: Gravitational lensing is the deflection of light rays from a background light
115: source by an intervening gravitational field \citep{melrev,refrev}. It is one of
116: the most promising probes of the distribution of dark matter, and hence the
117: effects of dark energy. Along lines of sight where the deflection is sufficient, ``strong
118: lensing'' visibly distorts (and often multiply images) the shapes of individual background
119: galaxies. However, only ``weak lensing'' is produced along most lines of sight, even those passing through the outskirts of
120: galaxy clusters. This weaker but ubiquitous signal has to
121: be collected statistically. To first order in a Taylor series, it is obtained
122: from the mean ellipticity of an otherwise uncorrelated set of galaxies
123: \citep{bs}.
124:
125: Weak
126: lensing measurements have now been well used to map the distribution of mass
127: \citep{bullet,CFHTmap,cosmos_map} and characterize its large-scale statistical
128: properties \citep{cosmos_cs,benjamin,kitching3d}. However, it is often the most
129: massive structures that are of particular interest in the maps
130: \citep[\eg][]{witmanclusters,gabodsclusters,satoshiclusters}, and that dominate
131: the contribution to the power spectrum on small scales \citep[\eg][]{smithps}.
132: Near such regions, the first-order assumptions implicit in a weak lensing analysis no longer
133: necessarily hold. In this paper, we expand the Taylor series of the weak lensing
134: equation to include the next-highest terms, and investigate the level of bias in
135: shear measurements that rely upon simple measurements of ellipticity.
136: %These
137: %biases operate in addition to those discussed by the Shear TEsting Programme
138: %\citep[STEP:][]{step1,step2}, which has currently tested only the explicitly
139: %weak lensing regime.
140:
141: We derive the lensing equations in \S\ref{sec:transforms}.
142: We check our results using raytraced simulations in \S\ref{sec:raytrace},
143: and we discuss their implications in \S\ref{sec:conc}.
144:
145:
146:
147:
148:
149: \section{Lensing Transformations}
150: \label{sec:transforms}
151:
152: \subsection{The Usual First-Order Treatment}
153: \label{sec:firstorder}
154:
155: A general gravitational lens deflects a light from a position $x^\prime$ in a background
156: (source) image to a position $x$ in the
157: observed (lens) plane, such that
158: \begin{equation}
159: \vec{x^\prime}=\vec{x}-\vec{\alpha}(\vec{x}) ~,
160: \label{eqn:lensequation}
161: \end{equation}
162: with a deflection angle predicted by General Relativity in the weak field limit of
163: \begin{equation}
164: \vec{\alpha}(\vec{x})=\vec{\nabla}\Psi(\vec{x}) ~,
165: \label{eqn:grprediction}
166: \end{equation}
167: and where $\Psi(\vec{x})$ is the Newtonian potential of the lens, $\Phi(\vec{x},z)$,
168: projected onto the
169: plane of the sky.
170:
171: Crucially, the gravitational field and the deflection angle vary across the sky.
172: Assuming (the local linearity condition) that the change is linear on scales
173: the size of a galaxy, it can be described to first order by a coordinate transformation
174: \begin{equation}
175: x^\prime_i = x_i-\left[\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x_i} \right] -
176: \frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}\left[\frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x_i}\right]\Delta x_j +...
177: ~.
178: \label{eqn:lineartrans}
179: \end{equation} The first derivative term represents an unmeasurable
180: centroid shift. Placing the origin of the coordinate system at the
181: galaxy's observed center of light, we are left with
182: \begin{equation}
183: x^\prime_i = \mathcal{A}_{ij} x_j + ...~,
184: \end{equation}
185: where the Jacobian of the transformation is
186: \begin{eqnarray}
187: \mathcal{A}_{ij}
188: & = & \delta_{ij} -
189: \frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial x_i\partial x_j} \\
190: \mathcal{A} & \equiv & \left(
191: \begin{array}{cc}
192: 1-\kappa-\gamma_1 & -\gamma_2 \\
193: -\gamma_2 & 1-\kappa+\gamma_1 \\
194: \end{array}
195: \right) ~.
196: \label{eqn:Amatrix}
197: \end{eqnarray}
198: We have introduced the usual notation of convergence $\kappa(\vec{x})=\vec{\nabla}^2\Psi(\vec{x})/2$,
199: which is proportional to the distribution of mass projected along a line of sight,
200: and two components of
201: shear $\gamma_i(\vec{x})$. The inverse mapping is simply
202: \begin{equation}
203: x_i=(\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{ij}x^\prime_j+...~.
204: \label{eqn:linearinvtrans}
205: \end{equation}
206:
207: It is always possible to adopt an arbitrary choice of rotation for the coordinate system
208: such that $\gamma_2=0$ (so $\mathcal{A}$ is diagonal),
209: and invoke parity symmetry to consider only that the potential increases to the right (hence
210: $\gamma_1<0$). We also work only in the ``positive parity'' lensing regime
211: (outside the critical curve), where $\mathrm{det}\mathcal{A}>0$.
212: Our analysis is equally valid inside the critical curve, although breaks down
213: if a part of the image crosses the critical curve \citep[\cf][]{bananas}.
214:
215: The shape of a galaxy image $I(x^\prime)$ can be quantified via its intrinsic ellipticity
216: \begin{equation}
217: \left\{\chi_1^\mathrm{int},\chi_2^\mathrm{int} \right\} ~\equiv~
218: \left\{\frac{Q_{11}^\mathrm{int}-Q_{22}^\mathrm{int}}{Q_{11}^\mathrm{int}+Q_{22}^\mathrm
219: {int}},\frac{2Q_{12}^\mathrm{int}}{Q_{11}^\mathrm{int}+Q_{22}^\mathrm{int}}\right\} ~,
220: \end{equation}
221: where its quadrupole moments are
222: \begin{eqnarray}
223: Q_{ij}^\mathrm{int}\equiv\frac{\int I(\vec{x^\prime})~x^\prime_i~x^\prime_j~\rmd^2\vec{x^
224: \prime}}{\int I(\vec{x^\prime})~\rmd^2\vec{x^\prime}} ~.
225: \label{eqn:quadrupoledefn}
226: \end{eqnarray}
227:
228: Under the (locally linear) lensing transformation~\eqref{eqn:linearinvtrans}, the galaxy's
229: observed ellipticity becomes
230: \begin{equation}
231: \chi_i^\mathrm{obs}=\chi_i^\mathrm{int}+2\gamma_i-\chi_i^\mathrm{int}(\chi_j^\mathrm{int}
232: \gamma_j)~,
233: \end{equation}
234: to first order in $\gamma$ \citep{seitzschneider}.
235: Averaging over a population of galaxies with
236: uncorrelated intrinsic shapes $\langle\chi^\mathrm{int}\rangle=0$,
237: an estimator
238: $\tilde{\gamma}$ can then recover the gravitational shear signal
239: \begin{equation}
240: \left\langle\tilde{\gamma_i}\right\rangle\equiv
241: \frac{\left\langle\chi_i^\mathrm{obs}\right\rangle}{2-\left\langle(\chi_i^\mathrm{int})^2
242: \right\rangle}
243: =\left\langle\gamma_i\right\rangle ~.
244: \label{eqn:shearestimator}
245: \end{equation}
246: The variance in the denominator can be closely approximated by the observed value.
247: It is typically of order 0.4 \citep[\eg][]{alexie}.
248:
249: For practical purposes, a weight function $W(\vec{x})$ with finite support is
250: also usually applied to the integrals in equation~\eqref{eqn:quadrupoledefn}.
251: This complicates the shear estimator: the shear
252: polarizability tensor $P^\gamma$ in \citet{ksb}, which generalizes the denominator
253: of equation~\eqref{eqn:shearestimator}, involves derivatives of
254: $W(\vec{x})$. However, $P^\gamma$ is typically fitted from a large ensemble of
255: galaxy shapes to reduce noise, and almost all of those galaxies will be on
256: lines of sight unaffected by higher order lensing terms. We therefore ignore the effect
257: here\footnote{As pointed out during the derivation of ``reduced shear'' by
258: \citet{bs}, a galaxy's flux $I(\vec{x'})$ could be replaced
259: in eq.~\eqref{eqn:quadrupoledefn} and throughout by a monotonic function of
260: intensity $f(I(\vec{x'}))$, without any change in the formalism. This approximates
261: a useful weighting scheme.}.
262: %We also ignore the blurring effect of a
263: %point-spread function, which needs to be corrected separately.
264:
265:
266: \subsection{Higher order terms}
267: \label{sec:higherorder}
268:
269: \noindent Continuing the Taylor series in equation~\eqref{eqn:lineartrans}, we can write
270: \citep[\cf][]{flexion1}
271: \begin{eqnarray}
272: x^\prime_i & = & \mathcal{A}_{ij} x_j
273: - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\partial^3\Psi}{\partial x_i\partial x_j\partial x_k}
274: x_jx_k \nonumber \\
275: &~& ~~~ - \frac{1}{6}\frac{\partial^4\Psi}{\partial x_i\partial x_j\partial x_k
276: \partial x_l}x_jx_kx_l +...
277: \label{eqn:highertrans}
278: \end{eqnarray}
279: Repeatedly substituting the simple form
280: \begin{equation}
281: x_i = (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{ij} \left( x^\prime_j
282: +\frac{1}{2}\Psi,_{jkl}x_kx_l +\frac{1}{6}\Psi,_{jklm}x_kx_lx_m\right)
283: \label{eqn:higherinvtrans}
284: \end{equation}
285: into itself then yields the inverse mapping
286: \begin{eqnarray}
287: x_i & = & (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{ij} x_j^\prime \\
288: & + & ^1/_2 (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{ij} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{kp} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{lq}
289: \Psi,_{jkl} x^\prime_p x^\prime_q \nonumber \\
290: & + & ^1/_6 (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{ij} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{kp} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{lq}
291: (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{mr} \Psi,_{jklm} x^\prime_p x^\prime_q x^\prime_r \nonumber \\
292: & + & ^1/_2 (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{ij} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{kp} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{lm}
293: (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{nq} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{sr} \nonumber\\
294: & ~ & ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \Psi,_{jkl} \Psi,_{mns} x^\prime_p
295: x^\prime_q x^\prime_r ~~ + ~~ ... \nonumber
296: \end{eqnarray}
297: The various terms are listed in order of decreasing importance.
298: Third derivatives of $\Psi$ are related to the {\em flexion} signal \citep
299: {flexion2,flexion3}.
300: This is small for realistic potentials; higher derivatives of $\Psi$ will be smaller still.
301: Note that this relation still holds locally even if there are
302: multiple images, but that there will be different values of $\mathcal{A}$ at each image.
303:
304: To complicate matters, this mapping now shifts the galaxy's center of light.
305: If the background image were correctly centroided (\ie\
306: $\langle x^\prime\rangle=0$), the observed centroid would be
307: \begin{equation}
308: \langle x_i\rangle \approx \frac{1}{2}(\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{ij} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{km}
309: (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{ln} \Psi,_{jkl} Q_{mn}^\mathrm{int}~,
310: \end{equation}
311: plus smaller contributions coming from the galaxy's intrinsic
312: octopole moment. In a coordinate system centered on the observed
313: image, the mapping (for a fully general potential) is therefore (\cf\ eq.
314: \ref{eqn:linearinvtrans})
315: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:finalcoord}
316: x_i & = & (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{ij} x_j^\prime \\
317: & + & ^1/_2 (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{ij}
318: (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{kp} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{lq} \Psi,_{jkl}
319: \big(x^\prime_p x^\prime_q-Q_{pq}^\mathrm{int}\big) \nonumber \\ & + &
320: ^1/_6 (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{ij} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{kp}
321: (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{lq} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{mr} \Psi,_{jklm}
322: x^\prime_p x^\prime_q x^\prime_r \nonumber \\ & + & ^1/_2
323: (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{ij} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{kp}
324: (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{lm} (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{nq}
325: (\mathcal{A})^{-1}_{sr} \nonumber\\
326: & ~ & ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \Psi,_{jkl} \Psi,_{mns} x^\prime_p
327: x^\prime_q x^\prime_r ~~ + ~~ ... \nonumber
328: \end{eqnarray}
329: In practice, a galaxy's intrinsic quadrupole moments cannot be observed. We expand them as a
330: function of the
331: galaxy's observed shape using equation~\eqref{eqn:highertrans}. However, several
332: non-negligible coefficients produce an unwieldly general
333: expression.%, because the quadrupole moments couple to several non-negligible coefficients
334: %during the transformation.
335:
336: %Equation~(\ref{eq:finalcoord})
337: %assumes a fully general potential
338: %that has been rotated to a convenient frame.
339: To make the equations more tractable, we now fix various properties of the lens and the source galaxy.
340: We first set to zero all derivatives of $\Psi$ that are ``odd'' at $90^\circ$
341: ($\Psi,_{112}$, $\Psi,_{222}$, $\Psi,_{1112}$ and $\Psi,_{1222}$). For a circular (or nearly
342: circular) potential that has
343: been rotated so that $\Psi,_{12}=0$, this assumption will be (nearly) accurate.
344: It is also explicitly true at the major and minor axes of an elliptical potential.
345:
346: Since we are in a fairly strong lensing regime, it is not unreasonable to assume
347: that $\gamma\gg\chi^\mathrm{int}$, so the galaxy can be considered intrinsically circular.
348: It still has a size $R^2\equiv 2Q_{11}^\mathrm{int}=2Q_{22}^\mathrm{int}$ and concentration
349: index
350: \begin{equation}
351: c\equiv\frac{\int I(\vec{x})~|\vec{x}|^4~\rmd^2\vec{x}}{(R^2)^2\int I(\vec{x})~\rmd^2\vec{x}} ~,
352: \end{equation}
353: which would be 2 for a Gaussian, 10/3 for an exponential, and higher still for a de
354: Vaucouleurs profile.
355: The observed ellipticity becomes
356: \begin{eqnarray}
357: \label{eqn:nonlinearchi}
358: \chi_1^\mathrm{obs}= \chi_1^\mathrm{lin} - \frac{a^2 d^2 ~~ R^2}{4(a^2+d^2)^2}
359: \Big[\big\{ a^2 \Psi,_{111} + d^2 \Psi,_{122} \big\}^2~~~~ \\
360: -c\big\{
361: 15 a^4 \Psi,_{111}^2
362: -(12 a^2 d^2
363: + 4 a d^3
364: - 3 d^4 )\Psi,_{122}^2 ~~~~~~~\nonumber \\
365: - 2a^2d(2a-3d) \Psi,_{111} \Psi,_{122} ~~~~~~~ \nonumber \\
366: + 4 a^3 \Psi,_{1111}
367: - 4 a d (a-d) \Psi,_{1122}
368: - 4 d^3 \Psi,_{2222}
369: \big\}\Big] ~.~ \nonumber
370: \end{eqnarray}
371: where $a\equiv(\mathcal{A}^{-1})_{11}=(1-\Psi,_{11})^{-1}$ and $d\equiv(\mathcal{A}^{-1})_
372: {22}=(1-\Psi,_{22})^{-1}$ are unitless.
373: For a Singular Isothermal Sphere (SIS) lens, $\Psi(\vec{x})=\theta_E|\vec{x}|$,
374: \begin{equation}
375: \chi_1^\mathrm{obs}= \chi_1^\mathrm{lin} -
376: \frac{cR^2}{\theta_E^2}
377: \frac{\left[12r^3-(7-\frac{1}{c})r^2-12r-7\right]}{4\left(r-1\right)^{4}(r^2+\left(r-1\right)^2)}
378: \end{equation}
379: where $r\equiv|\vec{x}|/\theta_E$. The deviation from an ellipticity assuming local linearity,
380: $\chi^\mathrm{lin}$, tends as $R^2/\theta_E^2$.
381:
382:
383:
384: \section{Verification through raytracing}
385: \label{sec:raytrace}
386:
387: We have developed a simple raytracing routine to deflect rays via equation~\eqref
388: {eqn:grprediction}, deforming
389: the intrinsic shapes of source galaxies into arcs. The upper panel of figure~\ref
390: {fig:chi_vs_re} demonstrates
391: the effect of a singular isothermal sphere lens with Einstein radius $\theta_E$ on an
392: intrinsically circular
393: Gaussian source with $\sigma=0.01\theta_E$. Note that this is a worst-case scenario in
394: several respects, with
395: more concentrated or smaller galaxies being less affected. If the lens were Abell 1689,
396: this would correspond
397: to a $z=1$ galaxy of FWHM $\sim 1\arcsec$ \citep{clowea1689}, which is amongst the largest 1
398: \% of
399: \citet{alexie}'s catalog at magnitude $i^\prime=25$.
400:
401: \begin{figure}[tb]
402: \epsscale{1}
403: \plotone{f1.eps}
404: \epsscale{1}
405: \caption{
406: {\it Upper images}: The observed shape of an intrinsically circular galaxy with a Gaussian
407: radial
408: profile and size $\sigma=0.01\theta_E$, at various positions behind a singular isothermal
409: sphere lens.
410: The images are presented with a logarithmic color stretch.
411: {\it Main panel}:
412: The solid lines show the object's ellipticity predicted by the usual linear model and our
413: higher order model.
414: The dotted line shows measured values from a fully raytraced simulation.}
415: \label{fig:chi_vs_re}
416: \end{figure}
417:
418: The main panel of figure~\ref{fig:chi_vs_re} shows the measured ellipticity of the raytraced
419: images, and the
420: prediction of linear and higher order models. These converge away from the lens; the slight
421: difference between them and the raytraced version is an effect of image pixellization.
422: %Pixellization errors are at the level of the separation between the curves, and are
423: converging slowly.
424: Near the lens, our nonlinear model~\eqref{eqn:nonlinearchi} again presents a worst
425: case of the deviation from a linear prediction. It differs from the raytraced
426: measurements due to even higher order terms in the coordinate transformation.
427:
428:
429:
430:
431:
432: \section{Discussion}
433: \label{sec:conc}
434:
435:
436: We have derived the next-highest terms in the coordinate transformation relevant for weak
437: gravitational lensing,
438: by dropping the assumption of ``local linearity'', which acts as a
439: useful constraint on the applicability of the linear approximation.
440: %\com{These eventually break down themselves, but act as a useful indication of the
441: %applicability of a linear approximation.}
442: The resulting equations are not elegant, but can be
443: simplified by making several reasonable assumptions about the galaxy's intrinsic shape and
444: the lens profile.
445: %$\com{We provide a convenient formula}.
446: As expected, the perturbations from linear lensing theory are greatest
447: for large galaxies; they increase as the size of the galaxy
448: squared. Like with gravitational flexion, this is simply due to the
449: accumulating change in shear signal across the width of an image.
450:
451: A linear lensing analysis systematically overestimates the shear signal near the core of
452: galaxy clusters.
453: However, even in the worst case scenario, it is acceptable surprisingly far into the non-
454: linear regime. Assuming
455: a value of 1.6 for the denominator of equation~\eqref{eqn:shearestimator}, it is within 1\%
456: of the true shear
457: outside $\sim 1.07\theta_E$\com, where $\gamma\simeq 0.47$, and the
458: reduced shear, $g\simeq 0.93$.
459: Compared to other potential errors, we therefore conclude that this will be of only minor
460: concern for measurements of
461: the mass of individual (or even stacked) clusters in immediately forthcoming surveys.
462: For example, the effect is in the right direction but an order of magnitude too small to
463: explain the discrepancy between
464: measurements of the mass in the bullet cluster \citep{bullet} via strong and weak lensing.
465: However, the effect ought to be considered by programs measuring the inner slopes of
466: cluster mass distributions or the mass power spectrum on small scales. The effect can become
467: relevant at about
468: the level of statistical accuracy proposed for next-generation surveys.
469:
470: We have not investigated the correction for a point spread function or the use of a weight
471: function while
472: measuring galaxy shapes.
473: %This should perturb our results only slightly. However,
474: A full analysis of these would be interesting in future work.
475:
476: \acknowledgments
477:
478: The authors thank Douglas Clowe, Yannick Mellier and Barnaby Rowe for useful discussions.
479: This work was supported by NASA grant ATP04-0000-0067 and DoE grant FG02-04ER41316.
480:
481: %\newpage
482: \begin{thebibliography}{}
483:
484: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Amara \& Refregier}{2004}]{adamgauss}
485: % Amara A.\ \& Refregier A., 2004, \mnras, 351, 375
486:
487: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bacon \etal}{2003}]{bmer}
488: % Bacon D., Massey R., Refregier A.\ \& Ellis R., 2003, \mnras, 344, 673
489:
490: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bacon, Refregier \& Ellis}{2000}]{bre}
491: % Bacon D., Refregier A.\ \& Ellis R., 2000, \mnras, 318, 625
492:
493: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bacon \etal}{2001}]{bacsim}
494: % Bacon D., Refregier A., Clowe D.\ \& Ellis R., 2001, \mnras, 325, 1065
495:
496: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bacon \etal}{2004}]{baccombo17}
497: % Bacon D.\ \etal\ \mnras~submitted (astro-ph/0403384)
498:
499: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bacon \& Taylor}{2003}]{bactaylor3d}
500: % Bacon D., \& Taylor A., 2003, \mnras, 344, 1307
501:
502: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bardeen \etal}{1986}]{bbks}
503: % Bardeen J., Bond J., Kaiser N.\ \& Szalay A., \apj, 304, 15
504:
505: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bacon \etal}{2006}]{flexion3}
506: Bacon D., Goldberg D., Rowe B.\ \& Taylor A., 2006, MNRAS 365, 414
507:
508: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bartelmann \& Schneider}{2000}]{bs}
509: Bartelmann M.\ \& Schneider P., 2000, Phys.\ Rep.\ 340, 291
510:
511: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Benjamin \etal}{2007}]{benjamin}
512: Benjamin J.\ \etal, 2007, MNRAS in press (astro-ph/0703570)
513:
514: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bernardeau, van Waerbeke, \&
515: % Mellier}{1997}]{bernard}
516: % Bernardeau F., van Waerbeke L.\ \& Mellier Y., 1997, \aap, 322, 1
517:
518: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bernardeau}{1999}]{bern99}
519: % Bernardeau F.\ 1999. {\it Proc.\ Cargese Summer Sch.}, {\it Cargese},
520: % {\it France}, ed.\ M Lachieze-Rey. astro-ph/9901117
521:
522: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bernstein \& Jarvis}{2002}]{bj02}
523: % Bernstein G.\ \& Jarvis M., 2002, \apj, 123, 583
524:
525: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bernstein \& Jain}{2004}]{bj3d}
526: % Bernstein G.\ \& Jain B., 2004, \apj, 600, 17
527:
528: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bertin \& Arnouts}{1996}]{sex}
529: % Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393
530:
531: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Borgani \etal}{2001}]{bor}
532: % Borgani S., Rosati P., Tozzi P., Stanford S., Eisenhardt P., Lidman C.,
533: % Holden B., Della Ceca R., Norman C., Squires G., 2001, \apj, 561, 13.
534:
535: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bridle}, {Gull}, {Bardeau} \&
536: % {Kneib}}{Bridle \etal}{2001}]{im2shape}
537: % Bridle S.\ \etal, 2001, in Scientific N.~W., Proceedings of the Yale Cosmology Workshop
538:
539: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brown \etal}{2003}]{browncs}
540: % Brown M., Taylor A., Bacon D., Gray M., Dye S., Meisenheimer K.\ \&
541: % Wolf C., 2003, \mnras, 341, 100
542:
543: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bristow}{2004}]{bristow}
544: % Bristow P., 2004, STIS Model-based charge Coupled Device Readout: Simulation
545: % Overview and Early Results (CE-STIS-ISR 2002-001; Baltimore, STScI)
546:
547: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Catelan, Kamionkowski \&
548: % Blandford}{2001}]{catelan}
549: % Catelan P., Kamionkowski M.\ \& Blandford R., 2001, \mnras, 320, L7
550:
551: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cohen \etal}{2000}]{cohen}
552: % Cohen J., Hogg D., Blandford R., Cowie L., Hu E., Songaila A.,
553: % Shopbell P.\ \& Richberg K., 2000, \apj, 538, 29
554:
555: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Clowe \& Schneider}{2001}]{clowea1689}
556: Clowe D.\ \& Schneider P., 2001, A\&A 379, 384
557:
558: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Clowe \etal}{2006}]{bullet}
559: Clowe D., Bradac M., Gonzalez A., Markevitch M., Randall S., Jones C.\ \& Zaritsky D.,
560: 2006, ApJ 648, 109
561:
562: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cole \etal}{2005}]{cole2df}
563: % Cole S.\ \etal, 2005, \mnras, 362, 505
564:
565: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Crittenden \etal}{2000}]{crit00}
566: % Crittenden R., Natarajan P., Pen U.-L.\ \& Theuns T., 2000, \apj, 559, 552
567:
568: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Croft \etal}{2000}]{cro00}
569: % Croft R.\ A.\ C., Metzler C.\ A., 2000, \apj, 545, 561
570:
571: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dekel \& Lahav}{1999}]{oferbias}
572: % Dekel, A.\ \& Lahav, O., 1999, \apj, 520, 24
573:
574: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Eisenstein \& Hu}{1997}]{eisenhu}
575: % Eisenstein D.\ \& Hu W., 1997, \apj, 511, 5
576:
577: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Eke \etal}{1998}]{eke98}
578: % Eke V.\ R., Cole S., Frenk C., Henry H.\ J., 1998, \mnras, 298, 1145
579:
580: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Erben \etal}{2001}]{erbsim}
581: % Erben T., van Waerbeke L., Bertin E., Mellier Y.\ \&
582: % Schneider P., 2001, \aap, 366, 717
583:
584: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fruchter \& Hook}{2002}]{drizzle}
585: % Fruchter A.\ \& Hook R., 2002, PASP, 114, 144
586:
587: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gray \etal}{2002}]{meg901}
588: % Gray M., Taylor A., Meisenheimer K., Dye S., Wolf C.\ \& Thommes E.,
589: % 2002, \apj, 568, 141
590:
591: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gavazzi \& Soucail}{2007}]{CFHTmap}
592: Gavazzi R.\ \& Soucail G., 2007, A\&A 462, 459
593:
594: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Goldberg \& Natarajan}{2002}]{flexion1}
595: Goldberg D.\ \& Natarajan P., 2002, ApJ 564, 65
596:
597: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Goldberg \& Bacon}{2005}]{flexion2}
598: Goldberg D.\ \& Bacon D., 2005, ApJ 619, 741
599:
600: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hamana \etal}{2003}]{hamanacs}
601: % Hamana T.\ \etal, 2003, \apj~in press (astro-ph/0210450)
602:
603: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{H\"{a}mmerle \etal}{2002}]{hammerle}
604: % H\"{a}mmerle \etal, 2002, \aap, 385, 743
605:
606: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Heavens \etal}{2000}]{hrh}
607: % Heavens A., Refregier A., Heymans C., 2000, \mnras, 319, 649
608:
609: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Heavens}{2005}]{heavens3d}
610: % Heavens A., Kitching T.\ \& Taylor A., 2006, \mnras~submitted (astro-ph/0606568)
611:
612: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Heymans \etal}{2005}]{gems_cs}
613: % Heymans C.\ \etal, 2005, \mnras, 361, 160
614:
615: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Heymans \etal}{2006}]{step1}
616: % Heymans C.\ \etal, 2006, MNRAS 371, 750
617:
618: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Heymans \etal}{2007}]{hey_sims}
619: % Heymans C., White M., Heavens A., Vale C.\ \& Van Waerbeke L., 2007, \mnras~in
620: % press (astro-ph/0604001)
621:
622: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hirata \& Seljak}{2004}]{intalinterfere}
623: % Hirata C.\ \& Seljak U., 2004, Phys.\ Rev.\ D, 70, 63526
624:
625: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Huterer \& White}{2003}]{hutw}
626: % Huterer \& White, 2003, \apj, 578, L95
627:
628: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hoekstra \etal}{1998}]{hoe98}
629: % Hoekstra H., Franx M., Kuijken K., Squires G., 1998, \apj, 504, 636
630:
631: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hoekstra \etal}{2002a}]{hoecs}
632: % Hoekstra H., Yee H., Gladders M., Felipe Barrientos L., Hall P.\ \&
633: % Infante, L., 2002a, \apj, 572, 55
634:
635: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hoekstra \etal}{2002b}]{hoebias}
636: % Hoekstra H., van Waerbeke L., Gladders M., Mellier Y.\ \& Yee H., 2002b,
637: % \apj, 577, 604
638:
639: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hoekstra}{2004}]{henkpsf}
640: % Hoekstra H., 2004, \mnras, 347, 1337
641:
642: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hoekstra \etal}{2006}]{cfhtlsw}
643: % Hoekstra H., Mellier Y., van Waerbeke L., Semboloni E., Fu L.,
644: % Hudson M., Parker L., Tereno I.\ \& Benabed K., 2006,
645: % \apj, 647, 116
646:
647:
648: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hu \etal}{199}]{huteg}
649: % Hu W.\ \& Tegmark M., 1999, \apj, 514, L65
650:
651: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ilbert \etal}{2006}]{ilbertlumfun}
652: % Ilbert O.\ \etal, 2006, \aap, 435, 809
653:
654:
655: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jain & Seljak}{1997}]{b9}
656: % Jain B.\ \& Seljak U., 1997, \apj, 484, 560
657:
658: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jain \etal}{2000}]{b10}
659: % Jain B., Seljak U., White S., 2000, \apj, 530, 547
660:
661: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jarvis \etal}{2003}]{jarviscs}
662: % Jarvis M., Bernstein G., Fisher P., Smith D., Jain B.\ \etal, 2003, \aj, 125, 1014
663:
664: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jarvis \& Jain}{2005}]{jarvispca}
665: % Jarvis M.\ \& Jain B., 2005, \apj~submitted (astro-ph/0412234)
666:
667: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jee \etal}{2005}]{jee05}
668: % Jee M., White R., BenÃtez N., Ford H., Blakeslee J., Rosati P.,
669: % Demarco R.\ \& Illingworth G., 2005, \apj, 618, 46
670:
671: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kaiser, Squires \& Broadhurst}{1995}]{ksb}
672: Kaiser N., Squires G.\ \& Broadhurst T., 1995, ApJ 449, 460
673:
674: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kaiser \etal}{2000}]{kai00b}
675: % Kaiser N., Wilson G.,\ \& Luppino G.\ 2000, \apj~submitted
676: % (astro-ph/0003338)
677:
678: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kamionkowski \etal}{1998}]{kam97}
679: % Kamionkowski M., Babul A., Cress C.\ \& Refregier A., 1998, \mnras, 301,
680: % 1064
681:
682: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kauffmann \etal}{1994}]{b15}
683: % Kauffmann G., Guiderdoni B., White S., 1994, \mnras, 267, 981
684:
685: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kitching \etal}{2007}]{kitching3d}
686: Kitching T., Heavens A., Taylor A., Brown M., Meisenheimer K., Wolf C.,
687: Gray M.\ \& Bacon D., 2007, MNRAS 374, 1377
688:
689: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Krist}{2003}]{krist03}
690: % Krist J., 2003, Instrument Science Rep. ACS 2003-06 (Baltimore: STScI)
691:
692: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kuijken}{2006}]{kkshapelets}
693: % Kuijken K., \aap~in press (astro-ph/0601011)
694:
695: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lahav \etal}{2001}]{lah01}
696: % Lahav, O., \etal\ 2001, submitted to \mnras, astro-ph/0112162
697:
698: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Leauthaud \etal}{2007}]{alexie}
699: Leauthaud A.\ \etal, 2007, ApJS 172, 219
700:
701: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Li \etal}{2006}]{giantarcs}
702: % Li G., Mao S., Jing Y., Mo H., Gao L.\ \& Lin W., 2006, \mnras~in press
703: % (astro-ph/0608192)
704:
705: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lombardi \etal}{2005}]{lombardi05}
706: % Lombardi, M., \etal\ 2005, \apj, 623, 42
707:
708: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Luppino \etal}{1997}]{lup97}
709: % Luppino G.\ A., Kaiser N., 1997 , \apj, 475, 20
710:
711: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lupton}{1993}]{lup93}
712: % Lupton R., 1993, Statistics in Theory and Practice (Princeton U.\ Press:
713: % Princeton)
714:
715: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{McCarthy, Bower \& Balogh}{2006}]{fgas06}
716: % McCarthy I., Bower R.\ \& Balogh M, 2006, \mnras~submitted
717: % (astro-ph/0609314)
718:
719: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Mandelbaum}, {Hirata}, {Seljak}, {Guzik},
720: % {Padmanabhan}, {Blake}, {Blanton}, {Lupton} \& {Brinkmann}}{{Mandelbaum}
721: % \etal}{2005}]{MandelbaumHirata}
722: %{Mandelbaum} R., {Hirata} C.~M., {Seljak} U., {Guzik} J., {Padmanabhan} N.,
723: % {Blake} C., {Blanton} M., {Lupton} R., {Brinkmann} J., 2005, MNRAS,
724: % 361, 1287
725:
726: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Maoli \etal}{2001}]{mao}
727: % Maoli R., van Waebeke L., Mellier Y., Schneider P., Jain B.,
728: % Bernardeau F., Erben T., Fort B., 2001, \aap, 368, 766
729:
730: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Massey \etal}{2001}]{kecksys}
731: % Massey R., Bacon D., Refregier A.\ \& Ellis R., 2001, ASP conf.\ ser.\ Vol
732: % 283, p.193., eds.\ T.\ Shanks \& N.\ Metcalfe.
733:
734: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Massey \etal}{2004}]{snap2}
735: % Massey R.\ \etal, 2004, \aj, 127, 3089
736:
737: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Massey \& Refregier}{2005}]{shapelets3}
738: % Massey R.\ \& Refregier A., 2005, \mnras, 363, 197
739:
740: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Massey \etal}{2004}]{shims}
741: % Massey R., Refregier A., Conselice C.\ \& Bacon D., 2004, \mnras, 348, 214
742:
743: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Massey \etal}{2005}]{xwht}
744: % Massey R., Refregier A., Bacon D., Ellis R.\ \& Brown M., 2005, \mnras, 359, 1277
745:
746: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Massey \etal}{2006}]{shapelets4}
747: % Massey R., Rowe B., Refregier A., Bacon D.\ \& Berg\'e J., 2006,
748: % \mnras~in press
749:
750: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Massey \etal}{2007a}]{cosmos_map}
751: Massey R.\ \etal, 2007a, Nature 445, 286
752:
753: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Massey \etal}{2007b}]{cosmos_cs}
754: Massey R.\ \etal, 2007b, ApJS 172, 239
755:
756: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Massey \etal}{2007c}]{step2}
757: % Massey R.\ \etal, 2007c, MNRAS 376, 13
758:
759: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mellier}{1999}]{melrev}
760: Mellier Y., 1999, ARA\&A 37, 127
761:
762: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Miyazaki \etal}{2007}]{satoshiclusters}
763: Miyazaki S.\ \etal, 2007, ApJ~in press (arXiv:0707.2249)
764:
765:
766: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Nakajima \& Bernstein}{2006}]{reiko}
767: % Nakajima R.\ \& Bernstein G., 2006, \aj~submitted (astro-ph/0607062)
768:
769: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Peacock \& Dodds}{1996}]{pandd}
770: % Peacock J.\ \& Dodds S., 1996, \mnras, 280, 19
771:
772: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Percival \etal}{2001}]{percival}
773: % Percival W.\ \etal, 2001, \mnras, 327, 1297
774:
775: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pen \etal}{2002}]{peneb}
776: % Pen U., Van Waerbeke L.\ \& Mellier Y., 2002, \apj, 567, 31
777:
778: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Percival \etal}{2001}]{2df01}
779: % Percival W.\ \etal\ 2001, MNRAS, 327, 1297
780:
781: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pierpaoli, Scott \& White}{2001}]{pier}
782: % Pierpaoli E., Scott D.\ \& White M., 2001, \mnras, 325, 77
783:
784: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Reiprich \& B\"{o}hringer}{2002}]{rei}
785: % Reiprich T.\ \& B\"{o}hringer H., 2002, \apj, 567, 716
786:
787: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Refregier}{2003}]{refrev}
788: Refregier A., 2003, ARA\&A 41, 645
789:
790: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Refregier}{2003}]{shapelets1}
791: % Refregier A., 2003, \mnras, 338, 35
792:
793: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Refregier \& Bacon}{2003}]{shapelets2}
794: % Refregier A.\ \& Bacon D., 2003, \mnras, 338, 48
795:
796: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Refregier Rhodes, \& Groth }{2002}]{ref02}
797: % Refregier A., Rhodes, J.\ \& Groth E., 2002, \apjl, 572, 131
798:
799: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rhodes, Refregier \& Groth}{2000}]
800: % {rrgmeth}
801: % Rhodes J., Refregier A., Groth E., 2000, \apj, 536, 79
802:
803: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rhodes, Refregier \& Groth}{2001}]
804: % {rrgmeas}
805: % Rhodes J., Refregier A.\ \& Groth E., 2001, \apjl, 552, 85
806:
807: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rhodes \etal}{2004}]
808: % {jr_stis}
809: % Rhodes J., Refregier A., Collins N., Gardner J., Groth E.\ \&
810: % Hill R., 2004, \apj~in press (astro-ph/0312283)
811:
812: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Seljak}{2001}]{selclus}
813: % Seljak U., 2001, \mnras, 337, 769
814:
815: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Seljak, Slosar \& McDonald}{2006}]{LyaCMB}
816: % Seljak U., Slosar A.\ \& McDonald P., 2006, \mnras~submittted (astro-ph/0604335)
817:
818: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Semboloni \etal}{2006}]{cfhtlsd}
819: % Semboloni E., Mellier Y., van Waerbeke L., Hoekstra H., Tereno I.,
820: % Benabed K., Gwyn S., Fu L., Hudson M., Maoli R.\ \& Parker L., 2006
821: % \aap, 452, 51
822:
823: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Semboloni \etal}{2006}]{semvariance}
824: % Semboloni E., van Waerbeke L., Heymans C., Hamana T., Colombi S.,
825: % White M.\ \& Mellier Y., 2006, \mnras\ submiteed (astro-ph/0606648)
826:
827: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schirmer \etal}{2007}]{gabodsclusters}
828: Schirmer M., Erben T., Hetterscheidt M.\ \& Schneider P., 2007, A\&A 462, 875
829:
830: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schneider \& Er}{2007}]{bananas}
831: Schneider P.\ \& Er X., 2007, arXiv:0709.1003
832:
833: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schneider \etal}{2002}]{schneb}
834: % Schneider P., van Waerbeke, L.\ \& Mellier Y., 2002, \aap, 389, 729
835:
836: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schneider \& Kilbinger}{2006}]{ringtest}
837: % Schneider P.\ \& Kilbinger M, 2006, \aap~submitted (astro-ph/0605084)
838:
839: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schrabback \etal}{2006}]{gemscs2}
840: % Schrabback, T.\ \etal\ 2006, \aap~submitted (astro-ph/0606611)
841:
842: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schneider \etal}{2002}]{schuecker}
843: % Schuecker P., Bohringer H., Collins C., \etal\ 2003, \aap, 396, 867
844:
845: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Seitz \& Schneider}{1995}]{seitzschneider}
846: Seitz S.\ \& Schneider P., 1995, A\&A 294, 411
847:
848: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Smail \etal}{1994}]{smailzdist}
849: % Smail I., Ellis R.\ \& Fitchett M., 1994, \mnras, 270, 245
850:
851: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Smith \etal}{2003}]{smithbias}
852: % Smith G., Edge A., Eke V., Nichol R., Smail I.\ \& Kneib J.-P., 2003,
853: % \aj, 590, L79
854:
855: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Smith \etal}{2003}]{smithps}
856: Smith R., Peacock J., Jenkins A., White S., Frenk C., Pearce F.,
857: Thomas P., Efstathiou G.\ \& Couchmann H., 2003, MNRAS 341, 1311
858:
859: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Smith \etal}{2003}]{smith}
860: % Smith R., Peacock J., Jenkins A., White S., Frenk C., Pearce F.,
861: % Thomas P., Efstathiou G.\ \& Couchmann H., 2003, \mnras, 341, 1311
862:
863: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Spergel \etal}{Spergel \etal}{2006}]{wmap3}
864: % Spergel D., \etal, 2006, \apj~submitted (astro-ph/0603449)
865:
866: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Szalay \etal}{2003}]{szalay}
867: % Szalay A.\ \etal\ 2003, \apj, 591, 1
868:
869: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Taylor}{2002}]{taylor3d}
870: % Taylor A., 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett., submitted (astro-ph/0111605)
871:
872: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Taylor \etal}{2006}]{taylor3d2}
873: % Taylor A., Kitching T., Bacon D.\ \& Heavens A., \mnras~submitted (astro-ph/0606416)
874:
875:
876: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Taylor \etal}{2004}]{taylor3dmap}
877: % Taylor A.\ \etal\ 2004, \mnras, 353, 1176
878:
879: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Van Waerbeke \etal}{2000}]{vw00}
880: % van Waerbeke L.\ et al., 2000, \aap, 358, 30
881:
882: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Van Waerbeke \etal}{2001}]{vw01}
883: % van Waerbeke L.\ et al., 2001, \aap, 374, 757
884:
885: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Van Waerbeke \etal}{2002}]{vw02}
886: % van Waerbeke L., Mellier Y., Pell\'{o} R., Pen U.-L., McCracken H.
887: % \& Jain, B., 2002, \aap, 393, 369
888:
889: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Van Waerbeke, Mellier \& Hoekstra}{2005}]{vw05}
890: % van Waerbeke L., Mellier Y.\ \& Hoekstra H., 2005, \aap~submitted
891: % (astro-ph/0406468)
892:
893: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Viana \& Liddle}{1999}]{vlold}
894: % Viana P., Liddle A., 1999, \mnras, 303, 535
895:
896: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Viana, Nichol \& Liddle}{2002}]{vlnew}
897: % Viana P., Nichol R.\ \& Liddle A., 2002, \apj, 569,75
898:
899: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Weinberg \etal}{2000}]{weinbias}
900: % Weinberg D., Dav\'{e} R., Katz N.\ \& Hernquist L., 2003, \apj~submitted
901: % (astro-ph/0212356)
902:
903: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{White}{White}{2002}]{nbody}
904: % White M., 2002, \apjs\ 143, 241
905:
906: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wittman \etal}{2000}]{wit00}
907: % Wittman D., Tyson J., Kirkman D., Dell'Antonio I., Bernstein G.,
908: % 2000, Nature, 405, 143
909: %
910: % \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wittman}{2002}]{witrev}
911: % Wittman D.\ 2002.\ {\it Dark Matter and Gravitational Lensing},
912: % {\it LNP Top.\ Vol.}, eds.\ F.\ Courbin, D.\ Minniti. Springer-Verlag
913: % (astro-ph/0208063)
914:
915: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wittman}{Wittman}{2005}]{witmanclusters}
916: Wittman D., 2005, ApJL 632, 5
917:
918: \end{thebibliography}
919:
920: %\clearpage
921:
922: %% The following command ends your manuscript. LaTeX will ignore any text
923: %% that appears after it.
924:
925: \end{document}
926: