1: \documentclass[twocolumn]{emulateapj}

2: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

3: \usepackage{epsfig,psfig,amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb}

4: %\newcommand{\com}[1] {{\bf ***#1***}}

5: %\newcommand{\com}[1] {{\bf #1}}

6: \newcommand{\com}[1] {#1}

7: \newcommand{\simgt}{\,\hbox{\lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}\llap{\raise0.6ex\hbox{$>$}}}\,}

8: \newcommand{\simlt}{\,\hbox{\lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}\llap{\raise0.6ex\hbox{$<$}}}\,}

9: \begin{document}

10: \shorttitle{Weak Lensing: Ground {\it vs} Space}

11: \title{A Comparison of Weak Lensing Measurements\\From Ground- and Space-Based Facilities}

12: \shortauthors{M.\ M.\ Kasliwal et al.}

13: \author{Mansi M.\ Kasliwal\altaffilmark{1,2}, 

14:         Richard Massey\altaffilmark{1}, 

15:         Richard S.\ Ellis\altaffilmark{1},

16:         Satoshi Miyazaki\altaffilmark{3} \& 

17:         Jason Rhodes\altaffilmark{4,1}}

18: 

19: \altaffiltext{1}{Astronomy Department, California Institute of Technology, 105-24, Pasadena, CA 91125, 

20: USA}

21: \altaffiltext{2}{George Ellory Hale Fellow of Moore Foundation}

22: \altaffiltext{3}{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan}

23: \altaffiltext{4}{Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 105-24, Pasadena, CA 

24: 91125, USA}

25: 

26: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

27: %%%%%

28: 

29: \begin{abstract}

30: 

31: We assess the relative merits of weak lensing surveys, using overlapping imaging data 

32: from the ground-based Subaru telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). 

33: Our tests complement similar studies undertaken with simulated data. 

34: From observations of 230,000 matched objects in the 2 square degree COSMOS field, 

35: we identify the limit at which faint galaxy shapes can be reliably measured 

36: from the ground. Our ground-based shear catalog achieves sub-percent calibration bias compared to 

37: high resolution space-based data, for galaxies brighter than $i^{\prime}\simeq$24.5 and with 

38: half-light radii larger than $1.8\arcsec$. This selection corresponds to a surface density of 

39: 15 galaxies arcmin$^{-2}$ compared to $\sim 71$ arcmin$^{-2}$ from space. On the other hand

40: the survey speed of current ground-based facilities is much faster than that  of HST, although 

41: this gain is mitigated by the increased depth of space-based imaging desirable for tomographic

42: (3D) analyses. As an independent experiment, we also reconstruct the projected mass distribution

43: in the COSMOS field using both data sets, and compare the derived cluster catalogs with those 

44: from $X$-ray observations. The ground-based catalog achieves a reasonable degree of completeness, 

45: with minimal contamination and no detected bias, for massive clusters at redshifts $0.2<z<0.5$. 

46: The space-based data provide improved precision and a greater sensitivity to clusters of lower 

47: mass or at higher redshift.

48: \end{abstract}

49: 

50: \keywords{cosmology: observations -- gravitational lensing -- instrumentation}

51: 

52: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

53: %%%%%

54: 

55: \section{Introduction}

56: \label{sec:Introduction}

57: 

58: Dark matter dominates the gravitational component of the cosmic energy density and thus provides

59: the framework for structure formation in the Universe. However, by its nature, the distribution

60: and cosmic growth are challenging to observe. The most promising probe is weak gravitational

61: lensing: analysis of the distorted shapes of ordinary galaxies behind foreground mass

62: concentrations. Several numerical techniques are now available to recover the projected mass

63: distribution from these distortions, and tests on simulated datasets are underway to verify their

64: precision \citep{step1,step2}. There is great optimism in the weak lensing community that such

65: methods will enable both the tomographic mapping of dark matter structures in time and space. This

66: will also provide a robust statistical measure of the nature of dark energy over redshifts 0$<z<$1

67: \citep{mellier99, refregier03}

68: 

69: Observational progress has been particularly dramatic. The first detections of 

70: statistical ``cosmic shear'' were only published in 2000 \citep{bacon00, kaiser00, wittman00,

71: vanwaerbeke00}. In the subsequent \com{seven} years, weak lensing surveys have measured the dark 

72: matter power spectrum \citep{brown03, heymans05, hoekstra06, sembolini06}, traced 

73: the evolution of structure \citep{bacon05, kitching06, massey07a}, enabled the construction 

74: of lensing-selected cluster catalogs \citep{miyazaki02a, wittman06, schirmer07, miyazaki07}, 

75: and non-parametrically reconstructed the total mass distribution both in clusters 

76: \citep{kneib03, clowe06, jee07} and on larger scales \citep{massey07b}. As a result, 

77: weak lensing has been identified as the most promising route to understanding the nature 

78: of dark energy by the ESA-ESO Working Group on Fundamental 

79: Cosmology\footnote{\tt http://www.stecf.org/coordination/esa\_eso/cosmology.php},

80: joint NSF-NASA-DOE Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory 

81: Committee\footnote{\tt http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/aaac.jsp}, 

82: and NSF-DOE High Energy Physics Advisory Panel 

83: Dark Energy Task Force\footnote{\tt http://www.nsf.gov/mps/ast/detf.jsp}. 

84: 

85: The primary signal of any weak lensing analysis is the statistically coherent 

86: distortion of background galaxies along adjacent lines of sight. The main sources of statistical 

87: noise are the finite density of galaxies that can be sufficiently well-detected and resolved for 

88: accurate shape measurement, plus their intrinsic morphologies. The density of resolved 

89: galaxies also governs the angular resolution and fidelity of a reconstructed mass map

90: which, in turn, determines the limiting halo mass that can be detected. On the other hand, 

91: statistical analyses of the dark matter power spectrum are less concerned with individual halos 

92: but require panoramic fields to counter the effects of cosmic (sample) variance. Minimizing 

93: statistical errors in such an analysis, within a finite survey lifetime, requires an optimal balance 

94: between area and depth.

95: 

96: A key debate in the development of future weak lensing experiments concerns the relative merits of

97: ground- versus space-based platforms. 

98: Ambitious surveys now being planned with dedicated, ground-based facilities (eg VST-KIDS, DES, 

99: Pan-STARRS, LSST). These are driven by technological progress including panoramic cameras with

100: small  optical distortions, highly sensitive imaging detectors, and (in the case of Pan-STARRS) 

101: on-chip active correction to reduce the width of the point spread function (PSF). Future surveys 

102: spanning significant fractions of the celestial sphere are envisaged, promising tight constraints 

103: on the  cosmological parameters.

104: 

105: However, measurements with current ground-based facilities are limited by the size and temporal

106: variations of the PSF. There is concern in many quarters that wide-field facilities operating in

107: space (e.g.\ DUNE, SNAP, JDEM) will ultimately be required to achieve the precision required

108: (particularly) to distinguish between various models of dark energy. Space-based facilities will

109: be more costly but will likely offer increased depth, better photometric performance and a stable

110: PSF. The key issue in gauging their merits is not statistical error, but the extent to which

111: potential biases in ground-based data may act as a ``systematic floor'' to prevent complete

112: exploitation.

113: 

114: Some valuable answers can be obtained by comparing simulated ground and space-based images, 

115: \citep{wittman05,lampton06} and the Shear TEsting Programme \citep[STEP:][]{step1,step2}.

116: However, the input parameters used to generate the simulated data may not be realistic or address

117: all the instrumental idiosyncrasies. Of particular concern are the stability and vagaries of the

118: PSF. No simulations have  yet adequately addressed this point -- which may, ultimately, be 

119: the limiting problem for ground-based data. It is often argued that future facilities will be 

120: carefully designed to mitigate any limitations realized with current observational facilities. 

121: While progress can no doubt be expected, both on the ground and in space, we believe many lessons

122:  can be learned from extant data and hardware with proven engineering pedigree.

123: 

124: In this paper, we present the first direct comparison of weak lensing analysis  {\it for the same

125: sky field} using ground and space-based data. Deep, panoramic imaging has been obtained for the

126: 1.64 deg$^2$ COSMOS field \citep{scoville07a} by both the Advanced Camera for  Surveys ({\it ACS})

127: on board the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) \citep{scoville07b} and the {\it Suprime-Cam} imager at

128: the prime focus of the Subaru 8.2m telescope \citep{taniguchi07}. In both cases, the 

129: entire field was covered by mosaicing many

130: independent exposures.  The SuPrimeCam instrument was constructed with weak lensing analysis

131: particularly in mind, and currently provides the best image performance available from any

132: ground-based telescope, in terms of optical distortions over a large field. A comparison of these

133: datasets should therefore provide a realistic and valuable assessment of the relative performance

134: of state-of-the-art imagers on the ground and in space.

135: 

136: The paper is organized as follows. In \S\ref{sec:theory}, we briefly review the relevant theory. In

137: \S\ref{sec:data}, we describe the two data sets, data reduction pipelines and weak lensing

138: analyses. We then present the results. In \S\ref{sec:analyses}, we compare shear measures on a

139: galaxy-by-galaxy  basis to determine the optimum depth at which the ground-based data matches the 

140: performance of the (deeper) space  based data. This permits us to determine the relative survey

141: speeds of Subaru and HST for high precision cosmic shear experiments. In \S\ref{sec:Maps}, we 

142: construct maps of the mass distribution, treating the Subaru and HST maps as independent probes of

143: the same field, and contrast these against X-ray data. This permits us to evaluate the completeness

144: and reliability of a lensing-selected halo catalog, and evaluate the precision of their inferred

145: masses as a function of redshift. In \S\ref{sec:conc}, we summarize our results and discuss their

146: wider implications for future missions.

147: 

148: \section{Review of Weak Lensing Theory}\label{sec:theory}

149: 

150: Gravitational lensing by foreground mass structures distorts an image plane of distant galaxies

151: $I(\mathbf{x})$ via a coordinate transformation

152: \begin{equation}

153: \label{eqn:psi_def_theory}

154: {\mathcal A}_{ij} = \delta_{ij} + \frac{\partial (\delta x_i)}{\partial x_j}

155:   = \left( \begin{array}{cc}

156: 1 - \kappa - \gamma_{1} & \gamma_{2}\\

157: \gamma_{2} & 1 - \kappa + \gamma_{1} \\

158: \end{array} \right),

159: \end{equation}

160: \noindent where $\delta x_i(\mathbf{x})$ is the deflection angle of the light rays. The {\em

161: convergence}

162: \begin{equation}

163: \label{eqn:kappa}

164: \kappa(\mathbf{x})=\frac{4\pi G}{2c^2}\int g(z) \rho(\mathbf{x},z) {\rm d}z ~,

165: \end{equation}

166: \noindent describes overall dilations and contractions. It is proportional to the 

167: total mass density $\rho$ projected along a line of sight, where the {\em lensing sensitivity function}

168: \begin{equation}

169: g(z)=\frac{2D_LD_{LS}}{D_S}

170: \label{eqn:sensitivitydefn}

171: \end{equation}

172: \noindent reflects the efficiency of foreground gravitational lenses at different redshifts --

173: containing a ratio of the angular diameter distance to a lens, the background source, and between the 

174: two. 

175: This can be more simply written as

176: \begin{equation}

177: \kappa ~ \equiv ~ \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial x^2} + \frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial y^2}\right) 

178: ~,

179: \label{eqn:convergencedefn}

180: \end{equation}

181: \noindent in terms of a 2D, projected version $\Psi(\mathbf{x})$ of the Newtonian gravitational potential.

182: Two components of {\em shear}

183: %\begin{eqnarray}

184: %\gamma_1 & \equiv & \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial x^2} - \frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial y^2}\right)  \\

185: %\gamma_2 & \equiv & \frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial x\partial y} ~,

186: %\label{eqn:sheardefn}

187: %\end{eqnarray}

188: \begin{equation}

189: \big\{\gamma_1,~\gamma_2\big\}

190:  \equiv \Bigg\{ 

191:  \frac{1}{2} \left(\frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial x^2} - \frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial y^2}\right),~

192:         \frac{\partial^2\Psi}{\partial x\partial y}

193:         \Bigg\}~,

194: \label{eqn:sheardefn}

195: \end{equation}

196: \noindent describe stretches and compressions along (at $45^{\circ}$ from) the $x$-axis.

197: 

198: The observed shapes of background galaxies can be described by combination of their

199: Gaussian-weighted quadrupole moments

200: \begin{equation}

201: \label{eqn:ksbd}

202: d\equiv\frac{\iint I({\mathbf x}) ~W({\mathbf x})~r^2~{\mathrm d}^2{\mathbf x}}

203:              {\iint I({\mathbf x}) ~W({\mathbf x})~{\mathrm d}^2{\mathbf x}} ~,

204: \end{equation}

205: \begin{equation}

206: \label{eqn:ksbe}

207: \big\{\varepsilon_1,~\varepsilon_2\big\}

208:   \equiv\frac{\iint I({\mathbf x}) ~W({\mathbf x})~r^2\big(\cos{(2\theta)},~\sin{(2\theta)}\big)~{\mathrm d}^2

209: {\mathbf x}}

210:              {\iint I({\mathbf x}) ~W({\mathbf x})~r^2~{\mathrm d}^2{\mathbf x}} ~,

211: \end{equation}

212: \noindent where 

213: \begin{equation}

214: \label{eqn:ksbweight}

215: W({\mathbf x})=e^{-r^2/2r_g^2} ~.

216: \end{equation}

217: Although $\kappa$ is generally the desired quantity, and could be obtained in principle from

218: measurements of galaxy sizes \eqref{eqn:ksbd} or fluxes, this has proved difficult in practice,

219: because expectations for these quantities prior to lensing are unknown. On the other hand, while

220: galaxies have a natural dispersion of intrinsic ellipticities \eqref{eqn:ksbe}, they are (almost)

221: uncorrelated with each other in the absence of lensing, i.e.\ $\langle\varepsilon_i\rangle=0$. Any

222: correlation between the {\em observed} ellipticities of galaxies seen along adjacent lines of sight

223: arises because their light has traversed similar intervening large-scale structure

224: $\rho(\mathbf{x},z)$. In practice, corrections to measured ellipticities also need to be made for

225: the smearing of galaxies by the PSF, and for the differing susceptibilities of some galaxy

226: morphologies to an input shear. For more details of this procedure, see e.g.\ \citep{ksb}.

227: 

228: The observed shear can finally be transformed into convergence through their close relation in

229: Fourier space

230: \begin{equation}

231: \label{eqn:gammatokappa}

232: \tilde{\kappa}=

233: \frac{(\ell_1^2-\ell_2^2)\tilde{\gamma_1}+(2\ell_1 \ell_2)\tilde{\gamma_2}}

234:      {(l_1^2+l_2^2)}

235: \end{equation}

236: \noindent \citep{kaiser93}.  This is typically some amount, to reduce noise. 

237: Furthermore, like any scalar quantity extracted from a vector field, a

238: convergence signal can also be split into two independent components, 

239: $\kappa = \kappa^{E} + i~\kappa^{B}$ \citep{king01}.

240: The grad-like ``$E$-mode'' is the signal produced by weak lensing.

241: The curl-like ``$B$-mode'' is not produced by physical processes \citep[except at very low levels,

242: as described by][]{schneider02}, and therefore ought to be consistent with zero in the absence of

243: systematics. Usefully, it contains the same noise properties as the $E$-mode signal -- so it acts

244: as an independent realization of noise in the field, and any significant deviations from zero

245: alert to the presence of residual systematics (such as imperfect correction for the PSF).

246: 

247: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}

248: \label{sec:data}

249: 

250: \subsection{The COSMOS Data Sets}

251: 

252: Our data all cover the COSMOS survey field, a 1.64 deg$^2$ contiguous square, centered at

253: 10:00:28.6, +02:12:21.0 (J2000) \citep{scoville07a}. The ground-based imaging was obtained in eleven 

254: mosaiced pointings

255: of the {\it Suprime-Cam} camera at the prime focus of the Subaru telescope on Mauna Kea

256: \citep{miyazaki02b}. These were taken on the 18th and 21st of February 2004, nights selected for

257: their excellent observing conditions: the mean seeing was $0.54\arcsec\pm0.03\arcsec$. The field

258: constitutes part of a larger weak lensing survey discussed, along with full details of the primary data

259: reduction pipeline, \com{in \citep[][Green et al.\ {\it in prep.}]{miyazaki07}. In fact, the relevant field 

260: in that survey covered a slightly larger area than the COSMOS field. 

261: The Subaru imaging was truncated when matching galaxy catalogs and was truncated {\it after} making 

262: convergence maps, to avoid edge effects associated with the

263: Fourier transform operations in equation~\eqref{eqn:gammatokappa}.}

264: 

265: Our comparison is made possible by the unique availability of deep, panoramic space-based imaging of

266: the COSMOS field \citep{scoville07b}. During HST cycles 13 and 14, 577 slightly overlapping

267: pointings were obtained from the {\it Advanced Camera for Surveys} ({\it ACS}) on board the Hubble

268: Space Telescope. Four dithered exposures at each pointing were stacked using the {\sc drizzle}

269: algorithm \citep{drizzle} to improve the native pixel scale of $0.05\arcsec$ and recover a final

270: pixel scale of $0.03\arcsec$. Full details of the primary data reduction pipeline for the HST images

271: are given in \citep{koekemoer07}.

272: 

273: It is important to emphasize that both the {\it ACS} and {\it Suprime-Cam} data exhibit

274: idiosyncrasies that present significant challenges for weak lensing analysis. For example, the

275: atmospheric seeing varied during the two nights over which the Subaru data were obtained; and the

276: distortions of the telescope's primary mirror under a gravity load were only passively corrected via

277: a look-up table as it followed the field. In a future ground-based experiment, such as LSST or

278: Pan-STARRS, seeing  variations could be normalized over a survey  by stacking a very large number of

279: short, independent  exposures taken over a long time period. Dome seeing could likewise be improved

280: with future  technologies. And while the telescope superstructure is particularly rigid at Subaru,

281: active correction  of the mirror support could undoubtedly improve future designs. Equivalently, the

282: sky background  seen from HST is affected by Earthshine that depends on the telescope pointing

283: \citep{leauthaud07}. The HST PSF also varies over time due to thermal fluctuations during each

284: low-Earth orbit  \citep{jee07, rhodes07}. Finally, the charge transfer efficiency of the {\it ACS}

285: CCD detectors had been  significantly degraded by high energy particles by the time the COSMOS data

286: were obtained, and worsened during the observing window \citep{rhodes07}. None of these problems

287: are inherent to all space-based observations: future missions might minimize or eliminate all three

288: effects by adopting a regular observing pattern, orbiting the Lagrange point L2, and using

289: radiation-hardened CCDs. However, the weak lensing analysis of existing space-based data is indeed

290: compromised by the extent to which such hardware variations can be modeled. In this sense, our

291: comparison is actually more informative than one based on simulated data that reproduces only

292: idealized and mean instrumental characteristics. 

293: 

294: The relevant characteristics of the two data sets are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:observations},

295: including limiting depths for a point source at $5\sigma$, in a $3\arcsec$ aperture from the ground 

296: and a $0.15\arcsec$ aperture from space \citep{capak07}. 

297: In addition to these images, the COSMOS field has been observed across all wavelengths from radio to

298: $X$-rays. Of particular relevance here are ($i$) deep $X$-ray observations by XMM

299: \citep{hasinger07}, which can be used to locate massive structures via thermal emission from hot

300: gas; and ($ii$) multicolor optical and near-IR imaging campaigns from the Subaru, Canada France

301: Hawaii, Cerro Tololo and Kitt Peak telescopes, which provide 15 additional bands and photometric

302: redshifts \citep{capak07, mobasher07}. The photometric redshift estimation code uses Bayesian priors

303: based on an adopted luminosity function, and includes reddening based on both Galactic and Calzetti

304: extinction laws. The results were calibrated using 868 galaxies in the field brighter than

305: $i^\prime=24$ and with spectroscopic redshifts. For galaxies closer than $z=1.2$, the rms scatter in

306: $(z_{phot} - z_{spec})\, /\, (1 + z_{spec})$ is 0.031.

307: 

308: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}

309: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

310: %\tablenum{1}

311: \footnotesize

312: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

313: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.1in}

314: \tablecaption{Survey Characteristics}

315: \tablewidth{0pc}

316: \tablehead{& \colhead{Ground} & \colhead {Space}}

317: \startdata

318: Instrument                  & Subaru/{\it Suprime-Cam} & HST/{\it ACS}   \\

319: Primary aperture            & 8.2m                     & 2.4m            \\

320: Exposure time               & 5 $\times$ 360s          & 4 $\times$ 507s \\ 

321: Total survey time           & 5 hours                  & 325 hours       \\ 

322: Filter                      & $i^\prime$               & F814W           \\

323: Limiting AB magnitude       & 26.2                     & 26.6            \\

324: %~~(5$\sigma$, point source) & \citep{capak07}          & 24.9 in $3\arcsec$ ap. \\

325: Field of View               & 2.14 deg$^2$             & 1.67 deg$^2$    \\

326: Pixel Scale                 & 0.202$\arcsec$           & 0.03$\arcsec$   \\

327: Point Spread Function       & 0.68$\arcsec$            & 0.12$\arcsec$   \\

328: \enddata

329: \label{tab:observations}

330: \end{deluxetable}

331: 

332: \subsection{Object Detection}

333: 

334: Objects were detected in the Subaru images using {\sc hfindpeaks} from the {\sc imcat}

335: package\footnote{Nick Kasiser's {\tt imcat} software package is available from  {\tt

336: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/$\sim$kaiser/imcat/}}. This finds the centroid and scale size $r_g$ that

337: maximizes the peak S/N of the image after smoothing with a Gaussian. The code also returns the

338: half-light radius, $r_h$, of each galaxy. Galaxies were initially detected to magnitudes fainter

339: than those for which it is possible to accurately measure shapes. To reduce noise in the final

340: analysis, weights were given to each galaxy, and galaxies with a detection S/N$<14$ were removed

341: from the catalog altogether. The resulting surface density is $n_\mathrm{gal}=42$ galaxies arcmin$^{-2}$.

342: 

343: %\com{Satoshi to add details as required.}

344: 

345: Objects were detected in the {\it ACS} images using SExtractor \citep{BertinArnouts} in a dual

346: Hot/Cold configuration \citep{leauthaud07}, designed to identify both large and small objects while

347: avoiding fragmentation of the former, or merging  of the latter. The SExtractor centroids were then

348: improved, and the best-fitting scale size was selected, via an iterative process during shape

349: measurement. Galaxies smaller than $d=0.11\arcsec$ or fainter than $S/N\approx20$ were removed 

350: from

351: the catalog, and a weighting scheme was applied to faint galaxies as a function of their detection

352: S/N \citep{leauthaud07}. Note that an absolute calibration of the S/N was difficult to determine in

353: practice, because flux in adjacent pixels becomes correlated during DRIZZLE. The S/N cut corresponds

354: approximately to a limiting magnitude $F814W(AB)<26.5$ for a point source. The resulting surface

355: density is $n_\mathrm{gal}=71$ galaxies arcmin$^{-2}$, with a median redshift $z_\mathrm{med}=1.2$.

356: 

357: 

358: \subsection{Shear Measurement}

359: \label{sec:Shear}

360: 

361: Because the image characteristics of the two data sets are quite different, we adopted separate

362: methods to measure galaxy shapes, remove PSF effects, and ultimately obtain the weak lensing shear

363: signal. Each of these methods has been optimized for the respective data sets, so our comparison

364: will necessarily incorporate the limitations of each pipeline. We believe this is in the spirit of a

365: fair comparison of ground versus space. To minimize any differences arising entirely from the

366: algorithms themselves however, we have intentionally adopted related methods from the same

367: generation of software development and codes that have been well-tested.  Although newer shear

368: measurement methods \citep{k2k, im2shape, dahle02, shapelets2, bj02, hirata03, kuijken06,

369: shapelets4, reiko} may offer improved performance, none has yet been sufficiently tested  across

370: both observing regimes.

371: 

372: The Subaru images were analyzed with the \citep{hamana03} implementation of the widely used

373: \citep[][hereafter KSB]{ksb} shear measurement method. This particular implementation is a

374: derivative of the ``LV'' pipeline tested in the Shear TEsting Program

375: \citep{step1,step2}.

376: 

377: The HST images were analyzed with the \citep[][hereafter RRG]{rrg} shear measurement method. This is

378: a perturbation of the KSB method for space-based data. It calculates the same quadrupole moments,

379: but corrects them individually for the effects of convolution with the PSF, and only in the final

380: stage takes the ratio~\eqref{eqn:ksbe}. This is necessary because the small and cuspy

381: diffraction-limited PSFs otherwise introduce divisions by very small (and noisy) numbers. RRG been

382: applied to HST {\it WFPC2} \citep{rrg}, {\it STIS} \citep{rhodes04}, and {\it ACS} data

383: \citep{massey07a}. The {\it ACS} pipeline was thoroughly tested on simulated images during the

384: creation of the COSMOS catalog \citep{leauthaud07}, and also for a continuation of STEP using

385: simulated space-based images. 

386: 

387: %In the following analyses it is important to distinguish between comparisons

388: %where HST and Subaru data are compared independently  (such as in 

389: %the convergence maps), and those where matched catalogs are 

390: %necessary (for comparing shear on a galaxy-by-galaxy basis). In the

391: %case of matched catalogs, we have experimented with various procedures,

392: %typically demanding spatial co-location within 1$\arcsec$. 

393: 

394: 

395: 

396: 

397: 

398: 

399: 

400: 

401: \section{Statistical Applications}

402: \label{sec:analyses}

403: 

404: \subsection{Shear-shear comparisons}\label{sec:shearbyshear}

405: 

406: We shall now compare the global properties of our ground- and space-based shear catalogs, to  

407: determine the depth (and galaxy surface density) at which reliable shear measurement is possible

408: from the ground. This will be relevant for many statistical applications, including measurements of

409: the angular shear-shear correlation function that are typically used to constrain cosmological

410: parameters. In such analyses, where statistical noise is reduced by averaging over many lines of

411: sight, the key issue is the reliability and level of residual systematics in the shear measurement.

412: 

413: We asses the performance of the ground-based shear measurements against those from {\it the same

414: galaxies} in space-based data, making the necessary but reasonable assumption that the shapes are

415: much more reliable when measured from the much higher resolution images with a smaller PSF. Such a

416: comparison is clearly only possible for the subset of galaxies contained in both catalogs. The two

417: quantities of interest will be linearity in the comparison (the slope of the shear-shear

418: comparison is equivalent to the STEP ``calibration bias'' parameter $m$) and the scatter (which

419: represents the combined shear measurement noise from both HST and Subaru, plus any systematic

420: effects).

421: 

422: We match galaxies whose positions agree to within 1$\arcsec$, and produce a common catalog 

423: containing $n_{gal}=32$ galaxies arcmin$^{-2}$. Many objects in the Subaru galaxy catalog without

424: matched counterparts in HST galaxy catalog have half-light radii on the limits of seeing and are likely to have been

425: revealed as stars by the higher resolution data; in any case, the omitted galaxies had below-average weights in

426: the Subaru catalog. The remaining unmatched objects are a combination of noisy/skewed galaxies with

427: offset centroids, or galaxies that lie in regions of the HST images masked because of scattered

428: light from nearby bright stars. For the following tests tests, we shall ignore the weights on remaining

429: galaxies, and treat all objects equally.

430: 

431: Figure~\ref{fig1} shows a comparison of the shear signal for the matched galaxies. Since errors  are

432: present in both axes, to calculate the best-fit linear relationship we adopt a least squares  

433: method that minimizes the perpendicular distance to the best fit line (instead of one that assumes 

434: one variable is error-free). Ideal shear measurement from both instruments would yield  a best-fit

435: slope of unity. \com{There will inevitably be a small amount of scatter, because the weight function~\eqref{eqn:ksbweight}

436: is not necessarily the same size $r_g$ in the ground- and space-based analyses.

437: In practice, we find a best-fit slope of 0.87, indicating that the shears have been

438: underestimated from the ground. The measurement noise is also

439: problematic, with $\sigma_\gamma=0.16$ per component (perpendicular to the best-fit line; 

440: note that this does not include intrinsic source ellipticity variance because the galaxies are matched) and

441: a skewed, non-Gaussian distribution of outlying shear estimates} that would render a cosmic shear analysis less stable. 

442: 

443: \begin{figure}

444: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f1.eps,width=3.2in}}

445: \caption[]{Comparison of shear measured from galaxies seen in both Subaru and Hubble Space Telescope images.

446: The greyscale shows the number of galaxies with different shear measurements. The outer contour

447: includes 90\% of the galaxies, and successive inner ones include 10\% fewer. 

448: The solid line is the least squares linear relation.

449: Its slope of 0.87 indicates that shears have been underestimated in the ground-based analysis, 

450: or that the catalog is still partially contaminated by stellar sources.

451: This value is insensitive within 0.01 to the reintroduction of galaxy weights.

452: Furthermore, the non-Gaussian

453: wings of the scatter extend well beyond the rms error of 0.16, shown as dashed lines.}

454: \label{fig1}

455: \end{figure}

456: 

457: The overall performance in figure~\ref{fig1} is a superposition of good shears from bright and (in

458: particular) large galaxies, plus smaller objects that cause most of the bias and scatter. Indeed,

459: systematic errors could be completely eliminated by using only the very largest galaxies. However,

460: the statistical noise in a cosmic shear analysis of shear-shear correlation functions scales as

461: $\sigma_\gamma/\sqrt{n_\mathrm{gal}}$. An optimal strategy for any particular ground-based survey

462: will involve catalog cuts requiring a trade-off between systematic and statistical errors. However,

463: the optimal cuts will vary as a function of survey area and depth. To produce a result of general

464: interest, we therefore show in Figures~\ref{fig:calibration} and \ref{fig:noise}, the resulting

465: calibration bias, scatter and galaxy density for a range of possible cuts in galaxy size and

466: magnitude. 

467: 

468: \begin{figure}

469: \centerline{\psfig{file=f2.eps,width=3.2in,angle=90}}

470: \caption[]{Relative calibration between shear measurements from galaxies in Subaru and Hubble Space Telescope data, 

471: for galaxies of different sizes and magnitudes. 

472: The contours show deviations from a slope of unity in figures~\ref{fig1} and

473: \ref{finalcuts}, which would have been ideal. For faint galaxies, these deviations tended to be an

474: underestimation in the Subaru pipeline relative to HST. There is some evidence that shears are

475: overestimated in large, bright

476: galaxies, although the small number of these objects means that the extrapolation is less certain.

477: The calibration biases are calculated locally, for

478: galaxies only in a given cell of \{size,magnitude\} space.

479: On the other hand, the grey-scale shows the cumulative number density of galaxies $n_{gal}$  that 

480: would remain in a ground-based catalog, were cuts to be applied at the local values 

481: (i.e.\ including all larger and brighter galaxies).}

482: \label{fig:calibration}

483: \end{figure}

484: 

485: \begin{figure}

486: \centerline{\psfig{file=f3.eps,width=3.2in,angle=90}}

487: \caption[]{Combined noise from shear measurements of galaxies matched in catalogs from Subaru

488: and Hubble Space Telescope data. The contours show $\sigma_\gamma$ as a function of galaxy size and

489: magnitude. As in figure~\ref{fig:calibration}, these are calculated only for galaxies with that

490: particular size and magnitude. The contours close at the top merely because there are very few

491: large, faint galaxies, so the rms scatter increases. 

492: The grey scale again shows the total number density of available

493: galaxies.}

494: \label{fig:noise}

495: \end{figure}

496: 

497: A simple result emerges from Figure~\ref{fig:calibration}. It is noticeable from the horizontal and

498: vertical contours that size and magnitude cuts seem to neatly parametrize independent sources of

499: error. Using existing shape measurement methodology, shear can be measured from galaxies brighter

500: than $i^\prime=24.5$ and larger than $r_h=1.8$, with measurement noise $\sigma_{\gamma}\simeq

501: 0.03$ and a calibration bias less than 3\% \com{(and only 1\% with galaxy weighting)},

502: which is acceptable for competitive constraints from future surveys \citep{refregier04}. This leaves

503: a surface density of $n_\mathrm{gal}=15$ galaxies arcmin$^2$ from the ground, with a median redshift

504: of $z_{\rm med}=$0.8. The comparison with space-based data for these cuts is shown in

505: figure~\ref{finalcuts}. 

506: 

507: \begin{figure}

508: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f4.eps,width=3.2in}}

509: \caption[]{As for figure \ref{fig1}, but for the subset of galaxies brighter than $i^\prime=24.5$

510: and larger than $r_h=1.8\arcsec$.

511: The total least squares slope is 0.97, implying an almost unbiased recovery of the shear signal

512: from Subaru, and the data is better and more symmetrically enclosed within the rms scatter of 0.11.}

513: \label{finalcuts}

514: \end{figure}

515: 

516: Note that we have not been able to test the reliability of space-based shear measurements using this

517: method, nor even considered the population of small galaxies resolved only from space. Without data

518: even better than {\it ACS} imaging to compare to, we resort to simulations. The full RRG pipeline

519: was calibrated against simulated images by \citep{leauthaud07}. However, of the 71 galaxies

520: arcmin$^{-2}$ successfully in real {\it ACS} images, only the brightest 40 could be used by 

521: \citep{massey07a} to minimize the $B$-mode signal and overcome problems of CCD charge transfer

522: inefficiency (CTI). This limitation clearly needs to be overcome: perhaps via a CTI correction

523: algorithm like that developed for {\it STIS} by \citep{cte}, and radiation-hardened detectors in

524: future telescopes.

525: 

526: \subsection{Survey speed}\label{sec:surveyspeed}

527: 

528: Our ground versus space shear comparisons have important implications when it comes to

529: considering the optimal  approach for measuring shear for cosmological applications.

530: %In this section we consider the question of balancing {\it depth} and {\it area}.

531: %Although this 

532: %combination (the {\it \'etendue}) can be expected to increase with both future ground and 

533: %space-based instruments, we will base our discussion on the current imaging depth

534: %and fields of view of HST and Subaru.

535: Although the {\it \'etendue} of instruments can be expected to increase both on the ground and in space,

536: we will base our discussion on the imaging depth and fields of view of our HST and Subaru surveys.

537: 

538: An important criterion is what can be accomplished in a given amount of observing time; the HST and

539: Subaru requirements for our comparison are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:observations}).  HST 

540: overheads

541: approximately tripled the on-source exposure time, and, at Subaru,  high quality imaging was

542: secured during what might be considered a fortuitous observing window. Noting that \citep{bacon01}

543: found images with seeing worse than $\sim 0.8\arcsec$ of little use for weak lensing analysis, 

544: coupled with observational visibility, it

545: seems reasonable to incorporate a factor of at least four inefficiency for a generic survey: even for a

546: superb ground-based facility such as Subaru, on an excellent site such as Mauna Kea\footnote{{\tt

547: http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/Instruments/Imaging/Megacam/ observingstats.html}. Future surveys such as

548: Pan-STARRS and LSST, which plan to co-add  many short exposures with independent PSFs, may 

549: achieve

550: near-uniform image quality  by rejectng a certain fraction of exposures. But the relevant figure of

551: merit is still the fraction of time spent with seeing better than  $0.8\arcsec$.}.  Based on its

552: superior field of view, Subaru is then $\sim$ 24 times  faster than HST in  useful mapping  speed. As,

553: to  first order, the signal to noise in statistical analyses increases as $\sqrt{n_\mathrm{gal}}$,  for

554: a fixed survey lifetime, this  corresponds to a $\sim5$-fold  improvement in signal to noise. 

555: 

556: This simplistic analysis is of course mitigated by the higher resolution available from space. We next

557: insert the gain in surface density, viz  71 galaxies arcmin$^{-2}$ resolved in our space-based imaging 

558: c.f.\ 15 arcmin$^{-2}$ from the ground. We will assume that the additional, small galaxies have a similar

559: distribution of intrinsic 

560: ellipticities as the larger ones \citep[c.f.][]{snap2, leauthaud07} and that the measurement noise on an 

561: average survey galaxy is constant (since the size distribution of resolved galaxies compared to the PSF 

562: size is roughly independent of the PSF size). Incorporating this increased background surface density,

563: the ground-based gain per unit time drops to only a factor of 2.3. 

564: 

565: Equally important to the increased density of galaxies are their higher redshifts. Distant galaxies are 

566: more

567: sensitive to

568: low-redshift lenses, and sensitive to more total lenses. The shear signal grows proportionally to the

569: median source redshift $z_{\rm med}^{0.6-0.8}$ \citep{jainseljak97}. With the redshift distributions

570: for galaxies shown in figure~\ref{fig:zsensitivity}, the total gain in signal to noise for a 2D weak

571: lensing survey conducted from Subaru over one conducted with HST is only about 1.7.

572: 

573: 

574: Perhaps the most important advantage of space is the increased redshift range of resolved galaxies. 

575: This better enables their stratification into redshift bins for tomographic (3D) analyses. Deep infrared 

576: imaging, needed for accurate photometric redshifts, is also likely to remain the province of space-based

577: observatories.  Tomographic techniques can tighten the constraints on cosmological parameters $

578: \Omega_{\mathrm

579: M}$ 

580: and $\sigma_8$ by a factor of at least three \citep{massey07a} and potentially as much as 

581: five \citep{heavens06}. 

582: Further advantages of these techniques includes the elimination of unwanted signal from 

583: adjacent galaxies' intrinsically-correlated shapes \citep{king03, heymans03}. While wide-field ground-based

584: instruments may therefore yield significant improvements for  Dark Energy Task Force ``Stage 3'' 

585: surveys, 

586: advanced analysis techniques for ``Stage 4'' surveys will realistically be possible only with space-based

587: facilities.

588: These will bring new scientific opportunities, cross-checks for systematics, and greater efficiency.

589: 

590: 

591: \begin{figure}

592: \centerline{\psfig{file=f5.eps,width=2.in,angle=90}}

593: \caption[]{The dotted lines show the redshift distribution of source galaxies from 

594: Hubble Space Telescope (black) and Subaru (red) imaging surveys, for the catalog cuts used in figure~\ref{finalcuts}.

595: The jagged lines show the measured photo-$z$s, and the smooth curves assume a simple parametric 

596: form for the background galaxy redshift distribution from \citep{smailzdist}, 

597: with $\alpha=2$, $\beta=1.5$, $z_{\rm med}=$0.8 or 1.2, and an overall

598: normalization to reproduce the observed number density of galaxies.

599: The solid lines show the corresponding lensing sensitivity functions calculated from the analytic curves.

600: Thees lie always in front of the

601: source galaxies but are notably higher for a space-based survey, particularly at redshifts greater

602: than 0.5. Extending this redshift coverage is crucial for 3D tomographic analysis techniques

603: to measure the growth of structure.}

604: \label{fig:zsensitivity}

605: \end{figure}

606: 

607: 

608: 

609: 

610: 

611: 

612: 

613: 

614: 

615: 

616: 

617: 

618: 

619: 

620: \section{Mass Maps and Halo Detection}

621: \label{sec:Maps}

622: 

623: We now investigate the reconstruction of maps of the mass distribution (figures~\ref{emode}  and

624: \ref{bmode}), and the detection of individual mass peaks. The mass and redshift distribution

625: $N(M,z)$ of several thousand lensing-selected clusters could be used to constrain cosmological

626: models \citep[][Green et al.\ {\it in prep.}]{hamana03, wang04}. Additionally, the physical properties of the 

627: dark matter

628: particles can be investigated by comparing the detailed distribution of dark matter with that of

629: baryons \citep{clowe06, dmring}. The key issues will be the angular resolution of reconstructed mass

630: maps, as well as the mass and redshift range in which halos can be successfully detected. We treat

631: this as an independent experiment from the previous section, beginning the comparison of ground- and

632: space-based data afresh. In particular, we do {\it not} cut the Subaru data  to the shallower depth

633: discussed in \S\ref{sec:shearbyshear}, to eliminate the last few systematic biases. 

634: %We therefore relax the galaxy size and magnitude cuts. 

635: The intent is  not to align our two comparisons but rather to optimize each analysis as an 

636: independent experiment -- as would be the case if either were being undertaken as a self-contained 

637: survey.

638: 

639: Unfortunately, even with the unprecedented investment of HST time for the 

640: COSMOS survey, we can expect the number of lensing-detected structures in this finite field 

641: to be modest. At the Subaru depth, a surface

642: density of $\sim$5 halos deg$^{-2}$  \citep{miyazaki07} implies only 

643: around eight halos are likely to be found in the COSMOS field. 

644: Thus we recognize in this comparison that the statistical significance 

645: of our results will be quite limited.

646: 

647: 

648: \begin{figure*}

649: %\centerline{\epsfig{file=f4.eps,width=5.0in, height=7.0in,angle=270}}

650: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f6a.eps,width=3.5in,angle=0}\epsfig{file=f6b.eps,width=3.5in,angle=0}}

651: \caption[]{Convergence $E$-mode maps from the Subaru (left) and

652: Hubble Space Telescope (right), \com{after smoothing by a $1\arcmin$ Gaussian kernel.

653: The data presented in the left panel are identical to that in figure 13 of \citep{miyazaki07}, except that the

654: field has been slightly truncated to match the right panel.

655: Convergence is proportional to the total projected mass along a line of sight, 

656: modulated by the

657: lensing sensitivity function \eqref{eqn:sensitivitydefn} plotted in figure~\ref{fig:zsensitivity}. 

658: Contours are drawn at detection significances of $3\sigma$, $4\sigma$ and $5\sigma$, with dashed lines for underdensities.

659: Clusters A, B, C and D are detected in both maps.

660: Other peaks E-L are only detected in one of the two.

661: White enclosing circles denote clusters deemed ``secure'' by the rigorous standards of \citep{miyazaki07}, and cyan circles

662: denote ``unsecure'' clusters. The size of the circles shows the size of the smoothing kernel that maximises detection significance,

663: enlarged by a factor of 2 for clarity. 

664: }}

665: \label{emode}

666: \end{figure*}

667: 

668: \begin{figure*}

669: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f7a.eps,width=3.5in,angle=0}\epsfig{file=f7b.eps,width=3.5in,angle=0}}

670: \caption[]{Convergence $B$-mode maps from Subaru (left) and Hubble Space 

671: Telescope (right) data. This is not

672: produced by physical gravitational lensing, so deviations from zero include a combination

673: of spurious effects from e.g.\ imperfect PSF correction, plus a realization of statistical noise.

674: \com{The smoothing scales, color ramps and contours are identical to those in figure~\ref{emode}.}}

675: \label{bmode}

676: \end{figure*}

677: 

678: 

679: 

680: 

681: 

682: 

683: 

684: 

685: 

686: 

687: \subsection{Residual Systematics}

688: 

689: First, we consider the $B$-mode signal. As discussed in \S\ref{sec:theory}, the $B$-modes act as an

690: independent realization of noise in the mass map, and locally highlight any problems with the

691: correction for PSF or other effects peculiar to the (two very different) instruments.

692: Unsurprisingly, a visual inspection of Figure~\ref{bmode} shows that the $B$-mode signal is

693: significantly lower in our space-based data, with fewer $B$-mode peaks. The overall noise level is

694: reduced, and holes arising from masked foreground stars are also smaller and less frequent. In the

695: ground-based maps, these create additional edges that lead to spurious effects during the Fourier

696: transforms required by equation~\eqref{eqn:gammatokappa}. 

697: The extended gaps are caused by difficulties modeling the PSF near the edge of the field of view,

698: \com{and could be eliminated in future surveys by more conservative tiling strategies}.

699: %Figure~\ref{bpeaks} compares the

700: %distribution of local maxima in the $B$-mode signal and their peak detection significance.

701: 

702: %

703: % NOTE: the next paragraph really needs to stay in because it is referred to later

704: %

705: \com{The southwest corner of the field has been

706: troublesome throughout our analysis. This pointing was observed in slightly worse seeing, so the

707: density of galaxies is reduced and the noise in the mass reconstruction is higher.}

708: %There could also be a potential problem with the PSF model as there are spurious.

709: 

710: %\begin{figure}

711: %\centerline{\psfig{file=f8.eps,width=2.3in, angle=90}}

712: %\caption[]{Histogram of $B$-mode peaks in convergence maps \com{smoothed on $1\arcmin$ scales} from 

713: %Subaru data (dotted red) and Hubble Space Telescope data (solid black).

714: %The ground-based map contains more peaks of higher significance, suggesting it is more affected by systematics.}

715: %\label{bpeaks}

716: %\end{figure}

717: 

718: \subsection{Halo Detection}

719: \label{sec:halos}

720: 

721: The higher surface density of background galaxies from space also improves the reconstruction of the

722: $E$-mode ``mass map''convergence field. The noise is lower and the angular resolution higher

723: (although to aid comparison, both panels in figure~\ref{emode} are smoothed to the same scale).

724: Several of the key features are qualitatively similar but we are struck by the significant differences

725: in the prominence of other mass peaks. 

726: \com{To evaluate the robustness of detections, we shall now employ an automated peak-finding

727: algorithm.}

728: 

729: \com{ Following \citep{miyazaki07}, we smooth the convergence maps by a Gaussian kernel of rms 

730: width 1$\arcmin$ and find local maxima with detection significance $\nu>4$ (assuming Gaussian errors 

731: on the shear measured within $0.7\arcmin$ cells on the sky equal to the dispersion of those galaxy shears). 

732: Five peaks (marked A, B, C, D and K in figure~\ref{emode}) are then identified in the ground-based data. 

733: However, two of these are near boundaries of the field mask. Imposing the rigorous restrictions discussed

734: by \citep{miyazaki07}, we find that only peaks A, B and C remain \citep[c.f.\ table~3 in ][]{miyazaki07}.  All 

735: three are also detected in a space-based lensing analysis, the 3D distribution of galaxies and as extended 

736: sources in  $X$-ray data \citep{hasinger07,finoguenov07}.} Assuming the mass-luminosity relation adopted 

737: by \citep{finoguenov07}, the detection threshold of this very deep $X$-ray data is well below that expected

738: for lensing up to redshift $\sim1$, so this acts as an ideal external arbiter (of course, $X$-ray 

739: mass-observable relations are somewhat uncertain). The properties of the three clusters are summarized 

740: in table~\ref{tab:mass} and demonstrate excellent agreement between the ground- and space-based

741: data using the formalism of \citep{miyazaki07}.

742: 

743: Cluster A (SJ J0959.6+0231) is the most massive structure inside the COSMOS field, easily detected

744: at many wavelengths. It appears to be in the process of a major merger, and has been studied

745: individually by \citep{guzzo07}, who also obtained a spectroscopic redshift of $z=0.73$.

746: Cluster B (SL J1001.4+0159) is associated with an $X$-ray peak

747: and overdensity of galaxies at $z_\mathrm{phot}=0.35$. There is a second set of galaxies at

748: $z_\mathrm{phot}=0.85$ within $2\arcmin$, which undoubtedly complicates the interpretation a

749: little, but our results are consistent with this high redshift projection being a minor

750: perturbation. Cluster C (NSC J100047+013912) is yet more local \citep[$z=0.22$,][]{miyazaki07} and 

751: appears large on the sky. Only part of this cluster is inside the region of HST imaging, so the space-based 

752: signal is significantly weakened, and the mass is potentially underestimated by HST.

753: %\com{This highlights the need to for any future facility to be able to observe a large, contigous area.}

754: 

755: \com{ To broaden our search, and test the limits of detectability, we additionally investigate the 

756: multi-scale procedure of \citep{hamana03}. For this, we smooth the convergence maps with Gaussian 

757: filters of rms width between 0.5$\arcmin$ and 4$\arcmin$, identifying local maxima inside the mask on 

758: each scale. For each peak with a detection signal to noise $\nu>4$ on any scale, we record $\nu$

759: and the smoothing scale that maximizes $\nu$. We also drop the restrictions on distance from the 

760: mask boundaries. This will increase the number of detected peaks, but at the expense of potentially 

761: introducing some spurious features. We then search for counterparts in the other data set, within 

762: 3$\arcmin$ of detected peaks.}

763: 

764: With the above criteria, we identify four mass peaks common to both convergence maps (A, B, C and D).

765: Cluster D is within 3$\arcmin$ of an $X$-ray peak, and an overdensity of galaxies at photometric 

766: redshifts $z_\mathrm{phot}=0.93$.  This redshift is rather high for a lensing analysis, and it was flagged 

767: as ``unsecure'' by \citep{miyazaki07} because it is near a boundary in the image mask.

768: However, the tentative Subaru detection is strengthened by the confirmation from HST, and appears 

769: to be robust. 

770: 

771: %With the above criteria, we identify four halos (A, B, C and D) common to both data sets. All four

772: %are discussed in more detail as part of the larger Subaru survey from which this data is drawn

773: %\citep{miyazaki07,green07}. Cluster A, the most massive structure in the COSMOS field, and one

774: %seemingly undergoing a major merger, is also discussed in \citep{guzzo07}. An overdensity of

775: %galaxies is present at all four locations. Spectroscopic redshifts are available for clusters A

776: %($z=0.73$) and D ($z=0.22$) \citep{miyazaki07}, and photometric redshift estimates for clusters B

777: %($z\approx0.93$) and C ($z=0.35$) \citep{finoguenov07}. Cluster C is the most problematic: there is

778: %a second set of galaxies with photometric redshifts at $z=0.85$ within $2\arcmin$. This undoubtedly

779: %complicates the interpretation a little, but our results are consistent with this high redshift

780: %projection being a minor perturbation.

781: 

782: %To make sense of the remaining diverse detections, we also use the XMM data for this field.

783: %\citep{finoguenov07} compiled a comprehensive list of mass concentrations in the COSMOS field by

784: %cross-correlating the $X$-ray data \citep{hasinger07} with the galaxy photometric redshift catalog

785: %\citep{mobasher07}. We search for counterparts of our lensing-selected halos in the XMM catalog by

786: %spatial colocation within 3$\arcmin$. Assuming their adopted mass-luminosity relation, the detection

787: %threshold of this very deep $X$-ray data is below that expected for lensing up to redshift $\sim1$,

788: %so this acts as an ideal arbiter (of course, $X$-ray mass-observable relations are notoriously

789: %uncertain).

790: 

791: Peaks E, F, G and H (also marked on Figure~\ref{emode}) are seen only in the space-based map. The first three

792: correspond to extended $X$-ray emission from clusters with masses $M_{500}$ between $2-4\times10^{13}M_\sun$

793: \citep{finoguenov07}. Peak H is more massive ($M_{500}=1.8\times10^{14}M_\sun$), but is at very high

794: redshift. \com{All four of these peaks are real detections; however no counterparts within 3$\arcmin$

795: are seen in the ground-based map, even down to $\nu>$3. Most likely, this is because of their lower mass and

796: higher redshift \citep{hamana03}.} The detection of peak G

797: was prevented in the ground-based data by a bright foreground star.

798: 

799: %Conversely, peaks J, K, L, M, N, O and P are detected in the ground-based map but have no

800: %corresponding space-based detection. Halos J and N are right on the edge of the HST field. There is a

801: %real cluster just outside the HST imaging from J, and indeed a weak signal is detected from its

802: %wings, although at $\nu<4$. Peak N is likely to be spurious: such noise artifacts are more common

803: %near the edge. Peak L was also detected in the \citep{miyazaki07} analysis, but again flagged as

804: %``unsecure''. It does align with a slight detection in the space-based map, but below $\nu=3$, and

805: %there is no $X$-ray counterpart. This may be coincidence, and a spurious signal, or perhaps a very

806: %distant object. Peaks K, M, O, P are in a southwest 1/9 portion of the field that has been

807: %troublesome throughout our analysis. This pointing was observed in slightly worse seeing, so the

808: %density of galaxies is reduced. Peaks K, O and P in particular are also only detected at very large

809: %smoothing scales, nearly the size of individual {\it Suprime-Cam} CCDs. There could be a potential

810: %problem with the PSF model. While all of the peaks seen in the space-based data (A-I) have

811: %counterpart detections in the $X$-ray catalog, none of the peaks seen only in the ground-based map

812: %(J-P) do. This suggests that peaks K-P are spurious features.

813: 

814: \com{

815: Conversely, peaks I, J, K and L are detected only in the ground-based map.

816: Peaks I and J are real, but lie just outside the HST imaging.

817: There is an extended $X$-ray source at peak I, with unknown redshift, and 

818: a projection of two $M_{500}\approx2\times10^{13}M_\sun$ clusters at redshifts $z=0.40$ and $z=0.75$ at peak J \citep{finoguenov07}.

819: In both cases, there is a weak, $\nu<3$ signal in the HST data, from the wings of the cluster.

820: Peak K was detected in the \citep{miyazaki07} analysis, but again flagged as

821: ``unsecure'' because it is near the edge of a pointing.

822: It does align with a slight, $\nu<3$ detection in the space-based map, 

823: but there is no $X$-ray counterpart. This may be a spurious peak with chance coincidence, or perhaps a very

824: distant object.

825: Peak L appears to be spurious: such noise artifacts are more common near the edge of the field. 

826: }

827: 

828: In summary, to the extent that we can draw conclusions from such a small sample, there

829: is very good agreement between the primary halo catalog drawn from the ground-based

830: data and that independently found from the space-based data. Additional halos of

831: lower mass and higher redshift are seen in the space-based catalog, and those located uniquely in the

832: ground-based data can be understood in the context of either being outside the space-based

833: region or close to its periphery.

834: 

835: \begin{deluxetable*}{cccccccccccc}

836: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

837: %\tablenum{3}

838: \footnotesize

839: %\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

840: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.07in}

841: \tablecaption{Cluster Masses}

842: \tablewidth{0pc}

843: \tablehead{

844: % first line of header

845: \colhead{Cluster}   &\colhead{RA}  &\colhead{Dec} &\colhead{Redshift}  &  \colhead{XMM mass} & \colhead{HST mass}  & \colhead{Subaru mass} \\ %& \colhead{HST Peak Mass}  &  \colhead{Subaru Peak Mass}  \\ %&\colhead{XMM size}  & \colhead{HST size}  &  \colhead{Subaru size} \\

846: % second line of header

847:    & &   & & \colhead{10$^{14} M_{\sun}$} & \colhead{10$^{14} M_{\sun}$} & \colhead{10$^{14} M_{\sun}$}}% &  \colhead{10$^{14} M_{\sun}$} & \colhead{10$^{14} M_{\sun}$ % & $r_{500}$ [$\arcmin$] & $r_{200}$ [$\arcmin$] & $r_{200}$ [$\arcmin$] 

848: \startdata

849:  A  & 149.917 & 2.515   &  0.73 & $1.90\pm0.05$ & 23$^{+13}_{-8}$  & $13^{+33}_{-9}$   \\%& 1.37 &  6.6  &  16.6    1.3 $\pm$ 0.5   &   2.7 $\pm$ 0.5   \\

850: %H  & 150.092 & 2.207   &  0.93 & $0.33\pm0.04$ & 15$^{+76}_{-13}$ & $29$^{+54}_{-19}$ \\%& 0.65 & 4.1  &  3.2   \\% 3.2 $\pm$ 0.5   &   4.2 $\pm$ 0.5   \\

851:  B  & 150.359 & 1.999   &  0.35 & $0.10\pm0.01$ & 9$^{+7}_{-4}$    & $17^{+13}_{-7}$   \\%& 0.88 &  3.4 &  3.9   \\% 1.4 $\pm$ 0.5   &   1.1 $\pm$ 0.5   \\

852:  C  & 150.184 & 1.657   &  0.22 & $1.01\pm0.02$ & 17$^{+17}_{-9}$  & $55^{+55}_{-27}$ %\\%& 2.75 & 3.8  &  7.5   \\% 1.3 $\pm$ 0.5   &   0.8 $\pm$ 0.5   \\

853: %Add XMM Luminosity here 1.56e44, 2.85e43, 3.8e42, 4.1e43

854: %Size 0.0228, 0.0109, 0.0147, 0.0458 degrees i.e. 1.368, 0.654, 0.882, 2.748

855: \enddata

856: \label{tab:mass}

857: \end{deluxetable*}

858: 

859: 

860: %\begin{deluxetable}{ccccl}

861: %\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

862: %%\tablenum{2}

863: %\footnotesize

864: %\setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.07in}

865: %\tablecaption{Cluster Detections\\

866: %{\bf ***Detection S/N could replace ticks.\\

867: %Could also add size, RA, Dec, z,...?***}}

868: %\tablewidth{0pc}

869: %\tablehead{

870: %\colhead{Cluster}   &\colhead{Space}  &\colhead{Ground} &\colhead{$X$-ray}  &  \colhead{Comments}}

871: %\startdata

872: %A & \checkmark &  \checkmark  & \checkmark &  \\

873: %B & \checkmark &  \checkmark  & \checkmark &  \\

874: %C & \checkmark &  \checkmark  & \checkmark & At edge of HST field \\

875: %D & \checkmark & (\checkmark) & \checkmark &  \\

876: %E & \checkmark &       ~      & \checkmark &  \\

877: %F & \checkmark &       ~      & \checkmark &  \\

878: %G & \checkmark &       ~      & \checkmark &  \\

879: %H & \checkmark &       ~      & \checkmark &  \\

880: %I &      ~     & (\checkmark) & \checkmark & Outside HST field \\

881: %J &      ~     & (\checkmark) & \checkmark & Outside HST field \\

882: %K &      ~     & (\checkmark) &      ~     & Uncertain         \\

883: %L &      ~     & (\checkmark) &      ~     & Spurious          

884: %\enddata

885: %\label{tab:mass}

886: %\end{deluxetable}

887: 

888: 

889: \subsection{Halo Mass Estimation}

890: 

891: We now attempt to measure the total mass of each of the three halos (A-C) securely detected from both

892: the ground and space.

893: We assume that the clusters have an NFW density profile

894: \begin{equation}

895: \rho(r) = \delta_c ~\rho_c/(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2 ~

896: \end{equation} 

897: \noindent \citep{nfw}, where $\delta_c$ is a function of the cluster's concentration $c$

898: and scale size $r_s \equiv r_{200}/c$, \com{and $r_{200}$ is the radius within which the mean density

899: is 200 times the critical density.} 

900: %Since $r_{200}$ is the radius where the mean density

901: %is 200 times the critical density, it can be equivalently expressed in mass units of $M_{200} = 4/3~\pi~r_

902: %{200}^3~\rho_c$. 

903: The shear profile of an NFW cluster is derived by \citep{king01}. 

904: We perform a maximum likelihood fit to the log(mass) and concentration parameters, using the shear 

905: measurements from all galaxies within 10$\arcmin$ of the \com{peak convergence signal}, averaged in radial bins of 0.5$\arcmin$.

906: %Figure~\ref{masses} shows the 68\%, 95\% and 99\% joint confidence limits.

907: \com{

908: It has been variously noted (J.\ Berg\'e, S.\ Paulin-Henrikkson, private comm.) that fitting noisy data 

909: of individual clusters with an NFW profile does permit large (and therefore massive) models with 

910: unnaturally low concentration values.

911: %We are more concerned aboout the errors than the absolute values but, 

912: To counter this effect, we impose a concentration prior, using the lognormal distribution found 

913: for all haloes in the {\it Millenium Simulation} as a function of mass

914: by \citep[][equations~(5), (6) and figure~6]{neto}.

915: The resulting likelihood surfaces are shown in figure~\ref{masses}, 

916: with the effect of the prior being to close the bottom of the contours.

917: Table~\ref{tab:mass} lists the best-fit masses and 68\% confidence limits after marginalizing over

918: concentration between $1<c<10$.

919: }

920: 

921: %%***behind the cluster - did you cut foreground gals? Needs a line saying yes or no, either way.*** 

922: %in a radius of 10$\arcmin$ of the cluster position in our catalogs, averaging 

923: %shear in bins of 0.5$\arcmin$. Next, we compute the residual sum of squares

924: %(RSS), $s^2$, of the theoretical prediction and data for a range of values of mass and

925: %concentration. Our best fit value for the mass and concentration is the value for

926: %which $s^2$ is a minimum.  We then compute the histogram of likelihood, 

927: %$exp(-s^2/2)$, and integrate until the area is 68\%, 95\% and 99\% of the 

928: %total area to determine the contour levels that best represent our RSS grid. 

929: %Our contour plots of the RSS grid for the ground and space-based data are

930: %compared in Figure~\ref{masses}. To estimate the best-fit mass and uncertainty,

931: %we marginalize the 2-d likelihood grid over the concentration parameter to get a

932: %1-d likelihood as a function of mass. Next, we compute the peak in the likelihood

933: %as the best-fit mass and the range for which the area is 68\% of the total area 

934: %to estimate the uncertainty. We summarize the mass estimates

935: %of clusters A, B, C and D in table~\ref{tab:mass}. 

936: 

937: \begin{figure}

938: \centerline{\epsfig{file=f8.eps, width=80mm}}

939: \caption[]{Best-fit mass and concentration index of three clusters in the COSMOS field, assuming

940: NFW radial mass profiles. The contours show the 68\%, 95\% and 99\% confidence regions obtained

941: from Subaru data (dotted red) and Hubble Space Telescope data (solid black).}

942: \label{masses}

943: \end{figure}

944: 

945: 

946: 

947: Although our common sample is small, there is an encouraging agreement between the detailed

948: properties of the clusters recovered from the ground and from space. For the higher redshift cluster A,

949: our space-based data does put significantly tighter constraints on the mass and

950: concentration than our ground-based data. However, for the lower redshift clusters B

951: and C, the results are satisfyingly similar. We note again that cluster C is partially outside the

952: HST imaging. Since shears are only measured around one half of the cluster, 

953: the \com{statistical errors} in the space-based analysis are \com{larger and its mass could be underestimated}.

954: Certainly, for massive clusters with redshifts 

955: $0.2\simlt z\simlt 0.5$, it appears that our ground-based depth and resolution is adequate. The main benefit of 

956: space-based imaging is in the measurement of lower mass halos and higher redshift clusters, plus the 

957: increased resolution to further investigate the distribution of their masses.

958: 

959: 

960: 

961: 

962: 

963: 

964: 

965: 

966: 

967: 

968: \section{Discussion}\label{sec:conc}

969: 

970: We have performed parallel weak lensing analyses of Subaru and Hubble Space Telescope imaging in 

971: the

972: COSMOS field. Our comparisons of the observed shear and convergence signals have revealed a 

973: number of

974: issues, and suggest that such a study with real data usefully complements the independent

975: approach based on blind analyses of simulated data \citep{step1, step2}. 

976: 

977: For statistical ``cosmic shear'' analyses, shear measurement with an existing ground based

978: telescope, using existing measurement techniques, can be achieved with less than 1\% bias relative

979: to higher resolution space-based data, for a galaxy surface density of 15 arcmin$^{-2}$. 

980: One limitation of our approach is that we cannot check the performance of our space-based analysis

981: on the additional, small galaxies.

982: At first sight the factor of $\sim$3 shortfall in surface density seems inconsequential given the

983: lower cost and improved areal mapping speed of existing ground-based cameras

984: such as SuPrime-Cam. However, accompanying the brighter Subaru limit is a

985: reduction in survey depth and hence the redshift distribution of background sources.

986: More distant sources contain a larger signal, and a narrower range of redshifts also hinders

987: tomographical tests \citep{bacon05,massey07b}, which tighten cosmological parameter constraints

988: significantly. 

989: 

990: A key issue is whether this limiting depth is a fundamental one for all future

991: ground-based cameras. PanSTARRS, VST, and even LSST each have significantly

992: smaller primary mirrors than Subaru, so achieving even the $S/N$ discussed here

993: would require formidable exposure times. Most importantly, the deep infrared imaging

994: that is required for photometric redshifts to enable tomographic analyses is likely to be

995: difficult over large survey fields from the ground, because of increased sky background.

996: Recent weak lensing analyses are limited at roughly the same level by uncertainty in

997: galaxy shape measurement and photometric redshift estimation. 

998: %For example, the

999: %relatively shallow $K$-band coverage in even the small COSMOS field limits the tomographic

1000: %analysis \citep{massey07a} to only three redshift bins, and even then contributes one of the

1001: %dominant sources of potential systematic uncertainty. Full implementations of cross-correlation

1002: %cosmography will presumably require deep near-IR imaging from space.

1003: 

1004: Statistical measurements from the ground are also hindered by variable atmospheric seeing. Past

1005: experience has taught the authors that data collected in seeing worse than $0.8\arcsec$ is

1006: of little use for weak lensing analysis. The apparently rapid speed of data collection for our Subaru

1007: data belies the time spent waiting for better seeing, even with the excellent atmospheric

1008: conditions above Mauna Kea and the well-controlled dome seeing of Subaru. For this small-scale

1009: survey, we obtained exceptional quality imaging during a fortuitous observing window. The relevant

1010: quantity for larger-scale surveys in the future will be the time-averaged seeing quality, and the

1011: fraction of time spent with seeing better than $0.8\arcsec$. This is particularly true for surveys

1012: like Pan-STARRS and LSST, that plan to adopt a strategy of co-adding many shorter exposures. 

1013: Their advantage is that the stacked images will achieve a near-uniform image quality, by virtue of the

1014: independent PSFs in each short exposure. This can then be tuned to the required image quality by

1015: rejecting a certain fraction of exposures.

1016: 

1017: Variable seeing conditions is also of concern for the reconstruction of mass maps (c.f.\ Green et al.\ {\it in 

1018: prep.}). Difficulties in

1019: the analysis of one pointing in the SW corner of the Subaru map result in a patchy recovery of

1020: large-scale structure; with \com{more noise and a lower range of probed redshift}

1021: in certain regions. 

1022: 

1023: %Figures~\ref{emode} and \ref{bmode} also give a clear visual indication 

1024: %of the benefits of a space-based platform. The systematics and statistical noise in the $B$-mode 

1025: %reconstruction are

1026: %significantly reduced, and the $E$-modes allow an improved resolution in selecting halos, \com{plus mass

1027: %sensitivity \citep[especially on larger smoothing scales, see][]{massey07b}

1028: %that includes filamentary large-scale structure}. This will be particularly important

1029: %for reconstructions of individual regions of interest like the Bullet cluster, where the detailed

1030: %differences between the location of mass and baryons in a small patch of sky (and in their wider

1031: %setting of nearby large-scale structure) may yield the best constraints on the properties of dark

1032: %matter.

1033: 

1034: Most importantly, \com{however, the four most massive clusters out of eight detected from space are also detected from the ground --

1035: with one intriguing additional signal and two more confirmed clusters just ouside the field of view observed from space.

1036: Reassuringly, the three clusters conservatively deemed ``secure'' by the independent analysis of \citep{miyazaki07} 

1037: have now been confirmed via space-based weak lensing and $X$-ray observations.

1038: The physical properties of the four massive halos in common (A, B and C) are remarkably consistent whether derived from 

1039: from ground- or space-based weak lensing. The measured masses and radial profiles of these clusters are consistent and, for

1040: the lower redshift clusters, the error bars are comparable.}

1041: %There is no 

1042: %significant systematic overestimation or underestimation of the implied mass or size, and

1043: %for lower redshift clusters, the ground- and space-based errors are comparable.

1044: A Dark Energy Task Force ``Stage 3'' survey from the ground appears eminently feasible. 

1045: %For 

1046: %the two higher redshift clusters, the space-based images provide a slightly better constraint 

1047: %on the mass and concentration parameter. 

1048: 

1049: %If we consider completeness of the sample,

1050: %4 out of 9 clusters detected by HST and XMM are recovered by Subaru -- 

1051: %a completeness of 44\%. Conversely, 56\% of the Subaru halos are undetected by HST, 

1052: %but these are likely spurious. Most of these detections lie in the SW corner of  the image 

1053: %which appears to be affected by a single pointing of lower quality. The XMM exposure map also 

1054: %indicates a lower sensitivity in this area.

1055: %Without this SW corner, the degree of contamination in the Subaru catalog with respect to 

1056: %XMM and ACS is only 1 out of 5, i.e.\ 20\%.  We emphasize here that our sample to estimate

1057: %the completeness and contamination is small and further studies of this nature are 

1058: %recommended to improve the statistics.

1059:  

1060: A wide-field space-based platform would open up many new applications. Very important for statistical

1061: applications is the increased redshift range of resolved background galaxies. These not only contain

1062: a larger shear signal, but also more readily split into redshift bins for tomographic analysis.

1063: Three-dimensional analysis techniques will tighten constraints on cosmological parameters by factors

1064: of $3-5$, and directly measure quantities that depend upon the properties of dark energy, like the

1065: growth of structure over cosmic time and the redshift-distance relation. They will also eliminate

1066: sources of error due to the intrinsic correlations of galaxy shapes. Sufficiently good photometric

1067: redshifts require deep, wide-field near-IR imaging, and these are also realistically possible over

1068: large surveys only from space. Recent weak lensing analyses with relatively shallow near-IR coverage

1069: like \citep{massey07a} are limited to roughly the same degree by uncertainty in galaxy shape

1070: measurement and photometric redshift estimation. Full implementations of cross-correlation

1071: cosmography will almost certainly require deep near-IR imaging from space. Such advanced techniques

1072: will become particularly important as ground-based surveys expand to encompass the entire observable

1073: sky.

1074: 

1075: The increased surface density of galaxies resolved from space also improves maps of the mass

1076: distribution. \com{As shown in figures~\ref{emode} and \ref{bmode}, the statistical noise and systematic 

1077: contamination in the $B$-mode are significantly reduced.

1078: Eight clusters are detected in the COSMOS $E$-mode signal without any contamination from spurious peaks.

1079: With the increased mass and spatial resolution of mass reconstructions from space, it becomes possible to detect halos

1080: the size of galaxy groups, as well as clusters over a wide range of redshifts -- thus tracing

1081: their formation,} which is governed by the properties of dark matter and the nature of gravity. 

1082: Space-based data also crosses the threshold to mapping even filamentary large-scale structure in three dimensions

1083: \citep{massey07b}. 

1084: %Performed over large

1085: %expanses of the sky, this} will give us an unprecedented view of the invisible universe, and also

1086: %parametrizing the local environment of other astrophysical phenomena.

1087: Obtaining the detailed, 3D

1088: distribution of mass will be particularly important near regions of interest like the Bullet cluster

1089: \citep{clowe06}, where the small differences between the location of mass and baryons in a small

1090: patch of sky may yield the best possible

1091: information about the properties of dark matter. In this and other astrophysical phenomena, knowledge of the

1092: local mass environment and nearby large-scale structure is critical.

1093: 

1094: Overall, we conclude that ground-based weak lensing surveys can perform several tasks remarkably

1095: well, with sufficiently small amount of systematic bias to easily justify the next generation of

1096: dedicated  ground-based surveys. Two dimensional statistical analyses will be able to produce 

1097: order-of-magnitude improvements in weak lensing constraints, using proven hardware technology and

1098: software pipelines. On the other hand, a wide-field space-based imager would provide important

1099: control over some systematic effects, and open up many new applications that are, at least

1100: currently, unachievable from the ground. For several of the most exciting techniques that will

1101: directly probe the nature of dark matter and dark energy, eventual space-based imaging is likely to

1102: be essential.

1103: 

1104: \section{Acknowledgments}

1105: 

1106: This work is supported by the US Department of Energy under contract DE-FG02-04ER41316. It is based upon observations with the NASA/ESA

1107: Hubble Space Telescope, obtained at the  Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA Inc, under NASA contract  NAS 5-26555.

1108: It is also based on data collected at the Subaru Telescope, operated by the  National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. It is our pleasure

1109: to thank Alexie Leauthaud and Takashi Hamana for help with the catalogs and Alexandre Refregier, James Taylor and Alexis Finoguenov for

1110: useful discussions. We also gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the entire COSMOS collaboration, consisting of more than 70

1111: scientists worldwide. More information on the COSMOS survey is available from {\tt \url{http://www.astro.caltech.edu/$\sim$cosmos}}.

1112: 

1113: 

1114: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1115: 

1116: 

1117: \bibitem[{Bacon, Refregier \& Ellis }{2000}]{bacon00} Bacon, D., Refregier, A.\ \& Ellis, R., 2000, \mnras, 

1118: 318, 625.

1119: 

1120: \bibitem[{Bacon et al.\ }{2001}]{bacon01} Bacon, D., Refregier, A., Clowe, D.\ \& Ellis, R., 2001, \mnras, 

1121: 325, 1065.

1122: 

1123: \bibitem[{Bacon et al.\ }{2005}]{bacon05} Bacon, D.\ et al., 2005, \mnras, 363, 723.

1124: 

1125: \bibitem[Bardeau et al.\ 2007]{bardeau07} Bardeau, S., Soucail, G., Kneib, J.-P., Czoske, O., Ebeling, H., 

1126: Hudelot, P., Smail, I.\ \& Smith, G., 2007, \aap, 470, 449.

1127: 

1128: \bibitem[Benjamin et al.\ 2007]{benjamin07} Benjamin, J.\ et al., 2007, \mnras, in press (astro-ph/

1129: 0703570).

1130: 

1131: \bibitem[{Bernstein \& Jarvis }{2002}]{bj02} Bernstein, G.\ \& Jarvis, M., 2002, \aj, 123, 583.

1132: 

1133: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts 1996]{BertinArnouts} Bertin, E.\ \&  Arnouts, S., 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393.

1134: 

1135: \bibitem[{Brown }{et al.\ }{2003}]{brown03} Brown, M., Taylor, A., Bacon, D., Gray, M., Dye, S., 

1136: Meisenheimer, K.\ \& Wolf, C., 2003, \mnras, 3431, 100.

1137: 

1138: \bibitem[Bridle et al.\ 2001]{im2shape} Bridle, S.\ et al., 2001, in Scientific N.~W., Proceedings of the

1139: Yale Cosmology Workshop.

1140: 

1141: \bibitem[Bristow et al.\ 2004]{cte} Bristow, P., 2004, ASP Conf.\ Proc., 314, 780.

1142: 

1143: \bibitem[Capak et al.\ 2007]{capak07} Capak, P.\ et al., 2007, ApJS, 172, 99.

1144: 

1145: \bibitem[Clowe et al.\ 2005]{clowe05} Clowe, D.\ et al., 2005, \aap, 451, 395.

1146: 

1147: \bibitem[Clowe et al.\ 2006]{clowe06} Clowe, D.\ et al., 2006, \apj, 648, L109.

1148: 

1149: \bibitem[Dahle et al.\ 2002]{dahle02} Dahle, H., Kaiser, N., Irgens, R., Lilje, P.\ \& Maddox, S., 2002, \apj 

1150: S, 139, 313.

1151: 

1152: \bibitem[Finoguenov et al.\ 2007]{finoguenov07} Finoguenov, A.\ et al., 2007, ApJS, 172, 182.

1153: 

1154: \bibitem[Fruchter \& Hook 2002]{drizzle} Fruchter, A.\ \& Hook, R., 2002, PASP, 114, 144.

1155: 

1156: \bibitem[Gavazzi et al.\ 2007a]{gavazzi07a} Gavazzi, R. et al., 2007, \aap, 462, 459

1157: 

1158: \bibitem[Gavazzi et al.\ 2007b]{gavazzi07b} Gavazzi, R. et al., 2007, \apj, 667, 176.

1159: 

1160: %\bibitem[Green et al.\ 2007]{green07} Green, A.\ et al., 2007, in preparation.

1161: 

1162: \bibitem[Guzzo et al.\ 2007]{guzzo07} Guzzo, L.\ et al., 2007, ApJS, 172, 219.

1163: 

1164: \bibitem[Hamana et al.\ 2003]{hamana03} Hamana, T.\ et al., 2003, \apj, 597, 98.

1165: 

1166: \bibitem[Hasinger et al.\ 2007]{hasinger07} Hasinger, G.\ et al., 2007, ApJS, 172, 29.

1167: 

1168: \bibitem[{Heavens, Kitching \& Taylor }{2006}]{heavens06} Heavens, A., Kitching, T.\ \& Taylor, A., 2006, 

1169: \mnras, 373, 105.

1170: 

1171: \bibitem[{Heymans \& Heavens }{2003}]{heymans03} Heymans, C.\ \& Heavens, A., 2003, \mnras, 339, 

1172: 711.

1173: 

1174: \bibitem[Heymans et al.\ 2005a]{step1} Heymans, C.\ et al., 2005a, \mnras, 368 1323.

1175: 

1176: \bibitem[Heymans et al.\ 2005b]{heymans05} Heymans, C.\ et al., 2005b, \mnras, 361, 160.

1177: 

1178: \bibitem[Heymans et al.\ 2006]{heymans06} Heymans, C.\ et al., 2006, \mnras, 371, L60.

1179: 

1180: \bibitem[{Hirata \& Seljak }{2003}]{hirata03} Hirata, C., Seljak, U., 2003, \mnras, 343, 459.

1181: 

1182: \bibitem[Hoekstra et al.\ 2006]{hoekstra06} Hoekstra H., Mellier Y., Van Waerbeke L.,

1183: Semboloni E., Fu L., Hudson M., Parker L., Tereno I.\ \& Benabed K., 2006, \apj, 647, 116.

1184: 

1185: \bibitem[{Jain \& Seljak }{1997}]{jainseljak97} Jain, B.\ \& Seljak, U., 1997, \apj, 484, 560.

1186: 

1187: \bibitem[Jee et al.\ 2007a]{jee07} Jee, J.\ et al., 2007a, \apj, 661, 728.

1188: 

1189: \bibitem[Jee et al.\ 2007b]{dmring} Jee, J.\ et al., 2007b, \apj, in press (arXiv:0705.2171).

1190: 

1191: \bibitem[Kaiser et al.\ 2000]{kaiser00} Kaiser N., Wilson G.,\ \& Luppino G.\ 2000, \apj, submitted (astro-

1192: ph/0003338).

1193: 

1194: \bibitem[{Kaiser \& Squires }{1993}]{kaiser93} Kaiser, N.\ and Squires, G.\ 1993, \apj, 404, 441.

1195: 

1196: \bibitem[{Kaiser, Squires \& Broadhurst }{1995}]{ksb} Kaiser, N., Squires, G.\ \& Broadhurst, T, 1995, \apj, 

1197: 449, 460.

1198:  

1199: \bibitem[Kaiser 2000]{k2k} Kaiser, N., 2000, \apj, 537, 555.

1200: 

1201: \bibitem[{King \& Schneider }{2001}]{king01} King, L.\ \& Schneider, P., 2001, \aap, 369, 1.

1202: 

1203: \bibitem[{King \& Schneider }{2003}]{king03} King, L.\ \& Schneider, P., 2001, \aap, 398, 23.

1204: 

1205: \bibitem[{Kitching }{et al.\ }{2007}]{kitching06} Kitching T., Heavens A., Taylor A., Brown M., 

1206: Meisenheimer K., Wolf C., Gray M.\ \& Bacon D., 2007, \mnras, 374, 1377.

1207: 

1208: \bibitem[Kneib et al.\ 2003]{kneib03} Kneib, J-P.\ et al., 2003, \apj, 598, 804.

1209: 

1210: \bibitem[Koekemoer et al.\ 2007]{koekemoer07} Koekemoer, A.\ et al., 2007, ApJS, 172, 196.

1211: 

1212: \bibitem[Kuijken 2006]{kuijken06} Kuijken, K., \aap, in press (astro-ph/0601011).

1213: 

1214: \bibitem[Lampton et al.\ 2006]{lampton06} Lampton, M., Sholl, M., Jelinsky, P.\ \& Stabenau H., 2006, 

1215: AAS, 209, 980

1216: 

1217: \bibitem[Leauthaud et al.\ 2007]{leauthaud07} Leauthaud, A.\ et al., 2007, \apj, 172, 219.

1218: 

1219: \bibitem[Mandelbaun et al.\ 2006a]{mandelbaum06a} Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Kauffmann, G., 

1220: Hirata, C.\ \& Brinkmann, J, 2006, \mnras, 368, 725.

1221: 

1222: \bibitem[Mandelbaun et al.\ 2006b]{mandelbaum06b} Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Cool, R., Blanton, M., 

1223: Hirata, C.\ \& Brinkmann, J, 2006, \mnras, 372, 758.

1224: 

1225: \bibitem[Massey et al.\ 2004]{snap2} Massey, R.\ et al., 2004, \aj, 127, 3089.

1226: 

1227: \bibitem[Massey et al.\ 2007a]{massey07a} Massey, R.\ et al., 2007a, ApJS, 172, 239.

1228: 

1229: \bibitem[Massey et al.\ 2007b]{massey07b} Massey, R.\ et al., 2007b, Nature, 445, 286.

1230: 

1231: \bibitem[Massey et al.\ 2007c]{step2} Massey, R.\ et al., 2007c, \mnras, 376, 13.

1232: 

1233: \bibitem[Massey et al.\ 2007d]{shapelets4} Massey, R., Rowe B., Refregier, A., Bacon, D.\ \& Berg\'e, J., 

1234: 2007d, \mnras, 380, 229.

1235: 

1236: \bibitem[Maturi et al.\ 2007]{maturi07} Maturi, M.\ et al., 2007, A\&A, 462, 473.

1237: 

1238: \bibitem[Mellier 1999]{mellier99} Mellier, Y., 1999, Ann.\ Rev.\ Astr.\ Astrophys., 37, 127.

1239: 

1240: \bibitem[Miyazaki et al.\ 2002a]{miyazaki02a} Miyazaki, S.\ et al., 2002a, \apjl, 580, 97.

1241: 

1242: \bibitem[Miyazaki et al.\ 2002b]{miyazaki02b} Miyazaki, S.\ et al., 2002b, PASJ, 54, 833.

1243: 

1244: \bibitem[Miyazaki et al.\ 2007]{miyazaki07} Miyazaki, S.\ et al., 2007, \apj, in press (arXiv:0707.2249).

1245: 

1246: \bibitem[Mobasher et al.\ 2007]{mobasher07} Mobasher, B.\ et al., 2006, ApJS, 172, 117.

1247: 

1248: \bibitem[{Nakajima \& Bernstein }{2007}]{reiko} Nakajima, R.\ \& Bernstein, G., 2007, \aj, 133, 1763.

1249:  

1250: \bibitem[{Navarro, Frenk \& White }{1996}]{nfw} Navarro, J., Frenk, C.\ \& White, S.\ 2006, \apj 462, p.563.

1251:  

1252: \bibitem[{Neto et al.\ }{2007}]{neto} Neto, A.\ et al., 2007, \mnras, submitted (arXiv:0706.2919).

1253: 

1254: \bibitem[Parker et al.\ 2007]{parker07} Parker, L., Hoekstra, H., Hudson, M., Van Waerbeke, L.\ \& Mellier, 

1255: Y., 2007, \apj, in press (arXiv0707.1698).

1256: 

1257: \bibitem[Refregier 2003]{refregier03} Refregier, A., 2003, Ann.\ Rev.\ Astr.\ Astrophys., 41, 645.

1258: 

1259: \bibitem[{Refregier \& Bacon }{2003}]{shapelets2} Refregier, A.\ \& Bacon ,D., 2003, \mnras, 338, 48.

1260: 

1261: \bibitem[Refregier et al.\ 2004]{refregier04} Refregier, A.\ et al., 2004, \aj, 127, 3102

1262: 

1263: \bibitem[{Rhodes et al.\ }{2001}]{rrg} Rhodes, J., Refregier, A.\ \& Groth, E.\ 2001, \apjl, 552, L85.

1264: 

1265: \bibitem[Rhodes et al.\ 2004]{rhodes04} Rhodes, J.\ et al., 2004, \apj, 605, 29.

1266: 

1267: \bibitem[Rhodes et al.\ 2007]{rhodes07} Rhodes, J.\ et al., 2007a, ApJS, 172, 203.

1268: 

1269: \bibitem[Schirmer et al.\ 2007]{schirmer07} Schirmer, M.\ et al., 2007, A\&A, 462, 872.

1270: 

1271: \bibitem[{Schneider et al. }{2002}]{schneider02} Schneider, P., Van Waerbeke, L.\ \& Mellier, Y., 2002, 

1272: \aap, 389, 729.

1273: 

1274: \bibitem[Schneider 2005]{schneider05} Schneider, P.\ 2005, Gravitational Lensing: Strong, Weak \& 

1275: Micro, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 273.

1276: 

1277: \bibitem[Schrabback et al.\ 2006]{schrabback06} Schrabback, T.\ et al., 2007, \aap, 468, 823.

1278: 

1279: \bibitem[Scoville et al.\ 2007a]{scoville07a} Scoville, N.\ et al., 2007, ApJS, 172, 1.

1280: 

1281: \bibitem[Scoville et al.\ 2007b]{scoville07b} Scoville, N.\ et al., 2007, ApJS, 172, 38.

1282: 

1283: \bibitem[Semboloni et al.\ 2006]{sembolini06} Semboloni E., Mellier Y., van Waerbeke L.,

1284: Hoekstra H., Tereno I., Benabed K., Gwyn S., Fu L., Hudson M., Maoli R.\ \& Parker L., 2006, \aap, 452, 51.

1285: 

1286: \bibitem[{Smail, Ellis \& Fitchett }{1994}]{smailzdist} Smail I., Ellis R.\ \& Fitchett M., 1994, \mnras, 270, 245.

1287: 

1288: \bibitem[Taniguchi et al.\ 2007a]{taniguchi07} Taniguchi, Y., et al.\ 2007, ApJS, 172, 9.

1289: 

1290: \bibitem[Taylor et al.\ 2004]{taylor04} Taylor, A.\ et al., 2004, \mnras, 353, 1176.

1291: 

1292: %\bibitem[Starck et al.\ 2006]{starck06} Starck, J.\ et al.\ 2006, A\&A, 451, 1139.

1293: 

1294: \bibitem[van Waerbeke et al.\ 2000]{vanwaerbeke00} Van Waerbeke, L.\ et al., 2000, A\&A, 358, 30.

1295: 

1296: \bibitem[Wang et al 2004]{wang04} Wang, S.\ et al., 2004, Phys.\ Review D., 70, 123008.

1297: 

1298: \bibitem[{Wittman }{et al.\ }{2000}]{wittman00} Wittman, D.\ et al., 2000, Nature, 405, 143.

1299: 

1300: \bibitem[Wittman 2005]{wittman05} Wittman, D.\ et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 632, 5.

1301: 

1302: \bibitem[{Wittman }{et al.\ }{2006}]{wittman06} Wittman, D., Dell'Antonio, I., Hughes, J., Margoniner, V., 

1303: Tyson, J., Cohen, J.\ \& Norman, D., 2006, \apj, 643, 128

1304: 

1305: \end{thebibliography}

1306: 

1307: 

1308: 

1309: %\include{tables}

1310: %/scr/mansi/lensing/Emodes.eps -> fig4.eps

1311: %/scr/mansi/lensing/Bmodes.eps -> fig5.eps

1312: %/scr/mansi/lensing/NFWcontours_v3.ps

1313: 

1314: \end{document}

1315: 

1316: