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

2: \documentclass{emulateapj}

3: %\usepackage{apjfonts}

4: %\usepackage{calrsfs}

5: %\usepackage{graphicx}

6: \def\arctanh{\mathop{\rm arctanh}\nolimits}

7: \newcommand{\eqref}[1] {equation $($\ref{#1}$)$}

8: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}

9: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}

10: \def\beqn{\begin{eqnarray}}

11: \def\eeqn{\end{eqnarray}}

12: \def\a{\alpha}

13: \def\cl{C_{\ell}}

14: \def\h{\mathrm{h}}

15: \def\d{\rmn{d}}

16: \def\pa{\partial}

17: \def\deldel#1#2{\frac{\pa{#1}}{\pa{#2}}}

18: \def\ba{\bm{\alpha}}

19: \def\fracj#1#2{{\textstyle{#1\over#2}}}

20: \def\bxi{\bm{\xi}}

21: \def\half{\frac{1}{2}}

22: \def\ti{\widetilde}

23: \def\O{\Omega}

24: \def\OL{\Omega_\Lambda}

25: \def\Om{\ensuremath{\Omega_{\mathrm{m}}}}

26: \def\Ob{\ensuremath{\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}}}

27: \def\Oc{\ensuremath{\Omega_{\mathrm{CDM}}}}

28: \def\msol{\ensuremath{M_\odot}}

29: \def\l{\left}

30: \def\r{\right}

31: \def\o{\omega}

32: \def\gcm{\textrm{g cm$^{-3}$}}

33: \def\2gcm{\textrm{g cm$^{-2}$}}

34: \def\Scr{\Sigma_{\mathrm{crit}}}

35: \def\rcr{\rho_{\mathrm{crit}}}

36: \def\phidot{\ensuremath{\dot\Phi}}

37: \def\ddelta{\ensuremath{\dot\delta}}

38: \def\modu#1{\l |{#1}\r |}

39: \def\av#1{\l \langle{#1}\r \rangle}

40: \def\hmpc{\:{h}^{-1}\mathrm{Mpc}}

41: \def\th{\Theta}

42: \def\tth{\tilde\Theta}

43: \def\sg{\sigma}

44: \def\Sig{\Sigma}

45: \def\cf{{\cal F}}

46: \def\k{\kappa}

47: \def\P{{P}}

48: \def\pnl{{P}_{{\!\textrm{\tiny NL}}}}

49: \def\dnl{\Delta_{\mathrm{\scriptsize NL}}}

50: \def\kmin{\k_{\mathrm{min}}}

51: \def\kmax{\k_{\mathrm{max}}}

52: \def\ktot{\k_{\mathrm{tot}}}

53: \def\hunit{\ensuremath{\mathrm{km}{\mathrm{s}^{-1}} \mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}}}

54: \def\H0{\ensuremath{\mathrm{H}_0}}

55: \def\nhat{\hat{\bmm{n}}}

56: \def\khat{\hat{\bmm{k}}}

57: \def\nn{\nonumber}

58: \def\lin{\mathrm{lin}}

59: \def\ISW{\mathrm{ISW}}

60: \def\bl{\bmm{l}}

61: \def\bL{\bmm{L}}

62: \def\fsky{f_{\mathrm{sky}}}

63: \newcommand{\E}[1]{\times 10^{#1}}

64: \newcommand{\bmm}[1]{{\mathbf{#1}}}

65: \newcommand{\new}[1]{{\color{blue} #1}}

66: \newcommand{\bsection}[1]{\section{\uppercase{#1}}}

67: \newcommand{\bm}[1]{\ensuremath{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}}

68: \def\bx{\bmm{x}}

69: \newcommand{\cmbav}[1]{\av{#1}_{\mathrm{CMB}}}

70: \newcommand{\lssav}[1]{\av{#1}_{\mathrm{LSS}}}

71: \def\arcsec{$^{\prime\prime}$}

72: \newcommand\tbd[1]{{\bf{tbd: ... {#1} ...}}}

73: \def\R200{\ensuremath{r_{200}}}

74: \def\M200{\ensuremath{M_{200}}}

75: \def\Mfof{\ensuremath{M_{\mathrm{FOF }}\:}}

76: \def\healpix{HEALPix }

77: \def\nbodymass{\ensuremath{m_\mathrm{\small{particle}}}}

78: \def\pixarea{\ensuremath{\Omega_\mathrm{pix}\: }}

79: \def\ncap{\ensuremath{N_\mathrm{cap}\: }}

80: \def\angres{\ensuremath{\theta_\mathrm{res}}}

81: \def\caparea{\Omega_\mathrm{cap}}

82: \def\tildecaparea{\tilde{\Omega}_\mathrm{cap}}

83: \def\capangle{\theta_\mathrm{cap}}

84: \def\steradian{\mathrm{sr}}

85: \def\mslice{M_\mathrm{slice}}

86: \def\nside{\mathrm{NSIDE}}

87: \def\nsidenow{$4096\:$}

88: \def\maxz{4.0}

89: \def\angresnow{\ensuremath{0.\arcmin 896 \:}}

90: \def\lm{{\ell m}}

91: \def\lmprime{{\ell' m'}}

92: \def\lone{{\ell_1}}

93: \def\ltwo{{\ell_2}}

94: \def\llow{{\ell_{\mathrm{low}}}}

95: \def\lhigh{{\ell_{\mathrm{high}}}}

96: \newcommand\llowx[1]{\ell_{\mathrm{low}}^{(#1)}}

97: \newcommand\lhighx[1]{\ell_{\mathrm{high}}^{(#1)}}

98: \def\lthree{{\ell_3}}

99: \def\lmone{{\lone m_1}}

100: \def\lmtwo{{\ltwo m_2}}

101: \def\lmax{{\ell_{\mathrm{max}}}}

102: \def\etheta{\mathbf{e}_{\theta}}

103: \def\ephi{\mathbf{e}_{\phi}}

104: \newcommand\tocite[1]{{\bf{\small[ cite #1]}}}

105: \newcommand\set[1]{\{#1\}}

106: \newcommand\edit[1]{{\color{red} #1}}

107: \newcommand\editpaul[1]{{\color{blue} #1}}

108: \graphicspath{{figures/}}

109: 

110: 

111: 

112: \begin{document}

113: \title{A Large Sky Simulation of the Gravitational Lensing of the

114: Cosmic Microwave Background}

115: \author{Sudeep Das \& Paul Bode}

116: \affil{Princeton University Observatory\\

117: Peyton Hall, Ivy Lane, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA}

118: \email{sudeep@astro.princeton.edu,bode@astro.princeton.edu}

119: \shortauthors{Das \& Bode}

120: \shorttitle{Large Sky CMB Lensing Simulation}

121: \begin{abstract}

122: Large scale structure deflects cosmic microwave background (CMB) photons. Since large angular scales in the large scale structure contribute significantly to the gravitational lensing effect, a realistic simulation of CMB lensing requires a sufficiently large sky area. We describe simulations that include these effects, and present both effective and multiple plane ray-tracing versions of the algorithm, which employs spherical harmonic space and does not use the flat sky approximation. We simulate lensed CMB maps with an angular resolution of $\sim 0.\arcmin9$. The angular power spectrum of the simulated sky agrees well with analytical predictions.  Maps generated in this manner are a useful tool for the analysis and interpretation of upcoming  CMB experiments such as PLANCK and ACT.

123: \end{abstract}

124: \keywords{cosmic microwave background --- gravitational lensing ---

125: large-scale structure of universe --- methods: N-body simulations

126: --- methods: numerical}

127: 

128: \section{Introduction }

129: While the current generation of CMB experiments have  had

130: a significant impact on cosmology by helping to establish a

131: standard paradigm for cosmology \citep{2003ApJS..148..175S,

132: 2007ApJS..170..377S}, the upcoming generation of CMB experiments still

133: has the potential to provide novel new insights into cosmology.

134: PLANCK\footnote{\url{http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?project=Planck}} and ground based experiments, such as the Atacama Cosmology

135: Telescope (ACT)\footnote{\url{http://www.physics.princeton.edu/act}}, will be mapping the CMB sky with significantly

136: higher angular resolution than ever before.

137: Secondary anisotropies on small

138: angular scales encode important information about the

139: late time interaction of CMB photons with structure in the Universe.

140: One of the most basic of these interactions is the gravitational

141: effect of the large scale structure potentials

142: deflecting the paths of the photons, an effect justifiably

143: referred to as the Gravitational Lensing of the CMB.

144: 

145: The effect of gravitational lensing can be thought of as

146: a remapping of the unlensed CMB field by a line-of-sight

147: averaged deflection field \citep[for a recent review,

148: see][]{2006PhR...429....1L}. Therefore, lensing does not change

149: the one-point properties of the CMB. However, it does modify

150: the two and higher-point statistics, and generates non-Gaussianity

151: \citep{1996ApJ...463....1S,1999PhRvD..59l3507Z,2000PhRvD..62f3510Z}.

152: Although the typical deflection suffered by a CMB photon during

153: its cosmic journey is about three arcminutes, the deflections

154: themselves are coherent over several degrees, which is	comparable

155: to the typical size of the acoustic features on the CMB. Thus

156: lensing causes coherent distortions of the hot and cold spots on

157: the CMB, and thereby broadens their size distribution. This leads

158: to redistribution of power among the acoustic scales in the CMB,

159: and shows up in the two-point statistics as a  smoothing of the

160: acoustic peaks. At smaller scales, where the primordial CMB is well

161: approximated by a {local} 

162: gradient, deflectors of small angular size produce

163: small-scale distortions in the CMB, thereby transferring power from

164: large scales in the CMB to the higher multipoles. Also, although the

165: primordial CMB can be safely assumed to be a Gaussian random field

166: \citep{2003ApJS..148..119K}, and the large scale lensing potential can

167: also be well approximated by  a Gaussian random field, the lensed

168: CMB--- being a reprocessing of one Gaussian random field by another---

169: is itself not Gaussian. The effect of lensing on the power spectrum

170: of the CMB is important enough that it should be

171: taken into account while deriving parameter constraints with future

172: higher resolution experiments. But what is even more interesting is that

173: the non-Gaussianity in the lensed CMB field should

174: enable us to extract information about the projected large scale

175: structure potential, and thereby constrain the late time evolution

176: of the Universe and Dark Energy properties. 

177: Therein lies the main motivation of studying this

178: effect in utmost detail.

179: Progress in this area has been slow.  Measurements

180: of the CMB precise enough to enable a detection of weak lensing

181: were not available in the pre-WMAP era. 

182: Also, picking out non-Gaussian signatures in the measured

183: CMB sky by itself is

184: extremely difficult, due to confusion from systematics, foregrounds,

185: and limited angular resolution. 

186: 

187: Rather than looking at signatures

188: of lensing only in the CMB, one can also measure to what

189: extent the deflection field estimated from the CMB correlates with

190: tracers of the large scale structure which contributed to the lensing.

191: It is easily realized that this approach is

192: powerful \citep{2000ApJ...540..605P} because many of the

193: systematics disappear upon cross-correlating data sets. This

194: approach was taken in recent years by \cite{2004PhRvD..70j3501H}

195: and \cite{2007PhRvD..76d3510S}, using WMAP 1-year and

196: 3-year data respectively. The former work looked at the cross

197: correlation with SDSS luminous red galaxies (LRG), while the latter used the NRAO-VLA Sky

198: Survey (NVSS) radio sources as their large scale structure tracers.

199: As the lensing efficiency for the CMB is highest between redshifts

200: of one and four, higher redshift tracers should show  greater cross

201: correlation signal, which makes the NVSS radio sources better tracers

202: for such study; \cite{2007PhRvD..76d3510S}

203: report a $3.4\sigma$ detection. An independent analysis by \citet{2008arXiv0801.0644H} looking for this effect in the WMAP 3-year data in cross

204: correlation with SDSS LRG+QSO and NVSS sources find this signal at the $2.5\sigma$ level.  With these pioneering

205: efforts and with higher resolution CMB data from experiments

206: such as ACT,

207: PLANCK and the  South Pole Telescope (SPT)\footnote{http://spt.uchicago.edu}

208: on the horizon, we are entering an era where robust detection

209: and characterization of this effect will become a reality. Also,

210: with upcoming and proposed large scale structure projects

211: (LSST\footnote{\url{http://www.lsst.org/lsst\_home.shtml}},

212: SNAP\footnote{\url{http://snap.lbl.gov/}},

213: ADEPT\footnote{\url{http://universe.nasa.gov/program/probes/adept.html}},

214: DESTINY\footnote{\url{http://destiny.asu.edu/}}, etc.) there will

215: in future be many more datasets to cross-correlate with the CMB.

216: 

217: One of the immediate results of such cross-correlation

218: studies will be a measurement of the bias of the tracer

219: population. Because such cross correlations tie together early

220: universe physics from the CMB and late time evolution from

221: large scale structure, they will also be sensitive to Dark

222: Energy parameters \citep{2006ApJ...650L..13H} and neutrino

223: properties \citep{2006PhRvD..74l3002S,2006PhRvD..73d5021L},

224: and can potentially break several parameter degeneracies in

225: the primordial CMB (M.~Santolini,  S.~Das and D.~N.~Spergel, in

226: preparation). Combination of galaxy or cluster lensing of the CMB

227: with shear measurements from weak lensing of galaxies can also provide

228: important constraints on the geometry of the Universe \citep[S.~Das

229: and D.~ N.~Spergel, in prep;][]{2007arXiv0708.4391H}. Again, with

230: high enough precision of CMB data, it is possible to estimate,

231: using quadratic \citep{2003PhRvD..67h3002O}	or maximum

232: likelihood \citep{2003PhRvD..67d3001H} estimators, the deflection

233: field that caused the lensing. Such estimates can be turned into

234: strong constraints of the power spectrum of the projected lensing

235: potential \citep{2002ApJ...574..566H}, which is also sensitive

236: to the details of growth of structure. The estimated potential

237: from the lensed CMB alone, or the potential estimated from weak

238: lensing surveys \citep{2007arXiv0710.2538M}, can be also used to

239: significantly de-lens the CMB. This is particularly important in

240: the detection of primordial tensor modes via measurements of CMB

241: polarization. This is because (even though detection of the so-called

242: B modes in CMB polarization is hailed as the definitive indicator

243: of the presence of gravitational waves from the inflationary era)

244: these mode can be potentially contaminated by the conversion of

245: E-modes into B-modes via gravitational lensing. De-lensing provides

246: a way of cleaning these contaminating B-modes produced by lensing

247: and thereby probing the true gravitational wave signature.

248: 

249: In this paper, we describe a method for simulating the

250: gravitational lensing of the CMB temperature field on a large

251: area of the sky using a high resolution Tree-Particle-Mesh

252: \citep[TPM;][]{2000ApJS..128..561B,2003ApJS..145....1B} simulation of large

253: scale structure to produce the lensing potential. The reason for

254: considering a large area of the sky is twofold.	First,

255: the deflection field has most of its power

256: on large scales (the power spectrum of the deflection field peaks at $\ell\sim 50$ in the best-fit cosmological model), and much of the power redistribution in the

257: acoustic peaks of the CMB occurs via coupling of modes in the

258: CMB with these large coherent modes in the deflection field. A

259: large sky allows for several such modes to be realized. It is

260: estimated that a small (flat) sky simulation that misses these

261: modes would typically underestimate the lensing effect by about

262: $10\%$ in the acoustic regime, and more in the damping tail

263: \citep{2000PhRvD..62d3007H}. Second, one of the major goals of

264: simulations such as this is to produce mock observations for 

265: upcoming CMB experiments.  PLANCK is an all-sky experiment,

266: and many of the future CMB experiments (including ACT and SPT) will

267: observe relatively large patches of the sky. Therefore, simulating

268: CMB fields on a large area  of the sky is a necessity.  This

269: method fully takes into account the curvature of

270: the sky.  Although presented here for a polar cap like area, it

271: can be trivially extended to the full sky. 

272: 

273: 

274: The value of a simulation as described here is multifaceted,

275: particularly

276: in the development of algorithms for detection and characterization

277: of the CMB lensing effect for a specific experiment. Since

278: each experiment has a unique scanning mode, beam pattern, area

279: coverage, and foregrounds, operations and optimizations 

280: performed on the data to extract the lensing information will

281: have to be tailored to the specific experiment.  A large-sky 

282: lensed CMB map acting as an input for a telescope simulator

283: provides the flexibility of exploring various observing strategies,

284: and also allows for superposition of known foregrounds.  Another

285: important aspect of this simulation is that the halos identified in

286: the large scale structure simulation can be populated with different

287: tracers of interest. Also, other signals, such as the Thermal

288: and Kinetic Sunyaev Zel'dovich	effects and {weak lensing of galaxies by large scale structure}, can be

289: simulated using the same large scale structure. This opens up the

290: possibility of studying the  cross-correlation of the CMB lensing

291: signal with various indicators of mass, and thereby predicting the

292: level of scientific impact that a specific combination of experiments

293: can have.

294: 

295: As noted in \cite{2005PhRvD..71h3008L}, the

296: exact simulation of the lensed CMB sky, which requires the

297: computation of spin spherical harmonics on an irregular grid

298: defined by the original positions of the photons on the CMB

299: surface, is  computationally expensive and requires robust

300: parallelization.

301: \cite{2005PhRvD..71h3008L} suggested an alternative in which

302: one would resample an unlensed CMB sky, generated with finer

303: pixelation, at these unlensed positions. This method was implemented in 

304: the publicly available LensPix\footnote{http://cosmologist.info/lenspix} code

305: that was based on \cite{2005PhRvD..71h3008L}.

306: However, producing a

307: high resolution lensed map requires 

308: a much higher resolution unlensed map, the generation of which

309: becomes computationally more expensive as resolution increases.

310: Here we put forward another alternative, in which we

311: do the resampling with a combination of fast spherical harmonic

312: transform on a regular grid followed by a high order polynomial

313: interpolation. This interpolation scheme has been adapted from

314: \cite{2004PhRvD..70j3501H}, and is called the Non-Isolatitude

315: Spherical Harmonic Transform (NISHT). This method is accurate as

316: well as fast, and does not require parallelization or production of

317: maps at a higher resolution. Another added advantage of this method

318: is that the same algorithm can be used to generate the gradient of

319: a scalar field on an irregular grid. Since the deflection field is a

320: gradient of the lensing potential, this opens up the possibility of

321: performing  a multiple plane ray tracing simulation. This is because

322: the rays, as they propagate from one plane to another, end up on

323: irregular grids, so the deflection fields on the subsequent planes

324: have to be evaluated on irregular grids.

325: At the time of the development of this project,  LensPix did not include an

326: interpolation scheme, and used the methods as described originally

327: in that paper. Concurrently with the completing of the current work,

328: an interpolation scheme \citep{232854}  different from the one described here has been added to that code. Another notable difference of our results with LensPix, is that while the latter uses a Gaussian Random realization of the deflection field, we have used a large scale structure simulation to produce the same, thereby including all higher order correlations due to non-linearities.  

329: 

330: The paper is laid out as follows. In \S\ref{Algorithm} we

331: explain the lensing algorithm,	describing the governing

332: equations in \S\ref{Equations} and their discretization

333: in \S\ref{Discretization}. Then we discuss the effective

334: lensing approach (\S\ref{Effective_Lensing}) as well as the

335: multiple plane ray tracing approach (\S\ref{Multiple_Plane}).

336: At the heart of the lensing algorithm lies the non-isolatitude

337: spherical harmonic transform algorithm adapted from

338: \cite{2004PhRvD..70j3501H}, which is reproduced in some detail for

339: completeness in \S\ref{Interpolation}. As discussed earlier,

340: we have employed a light cone $N$-body  simulation and adopted a

341: special polar cap like geometry for generating the lensing planes

342: (\S\ref{Plane_Generation}). For comparison of the simulated fields

343: with theoretical prediction, we compute the angular power spectra on

344: the polar cap window; in \S\ref{Angular_Power_Spectra} we describe

345: some of the subtleties involved in computing the power spectra.

346: We present our results in \S\ref{Results} and describe the tests

347: that we have performed in \S\ref{Tests}.

348: Conclusions are presented in \S\ref{Conclusions}.

349: 

350: \section{ The Lensing Algorithm}\label{Algorithm}

351: \subsection{ Basic Equations}\label{Equations}

352: We would like to note here that while the calculations for the

353: simulation described here has been done for a flat universe, our

354: approach is generalizable to non-flat geometries.

355: 

356: The deflection angle  of a light ray propagating through the space is

357: \beq

358: \label{deflection}

359: d\bm\alpha=-2\nabla_\perp \Psi d\eta  ,

360: \eeq

361: where is $d\bm\alpha$ is the deflection angle, $\Psi$ is the Newtonian potential, $\nabla_\perp$

362: denotes the spatial gradient on a plane perpendicular to light

363: propagation direction and $\eta$ is the radial comoving distance.

364: The transverse shift of the light ray position at $\eta$ due to a

365: deflection at $\eta'$ is given by

366: \beq

367: d\bmm x (\eta)=d_A(\eta-\eta') d\bm\alpha(\eta')  ,

368: \eeq

369: where $d_A(\eta)$ is the comoving angular diameter distance.

370: 

371: The final angular position $\bm \theta(\eta)=\bmm x(\eta)/d_A(\eta)$

372: is therefore given by

373: \beqn

374: \label{finalpos}

375: \nn\bm\theta(\eta)&=&\bm\theta(0)-\frac{2}{d_A(\eta)}\int_0^{\eta}

376: d\eta' d_A(\eta-\eta') \nabla_\perp \Psi\\

377: &=&\bm\theta(0)+\bm{\tilde{\alpha}}(\eta)  ,

378: \eeqn

379: where $\bm{\tilde\alpha}$ is the total effective deflection.

380: 

381: \subsection{\label{Discretization} Discretization}

382: We will now discretize the above equations by dividing the radial

383: interval between the observer and the source into $N$ concentric

384: shells each of comoving thickness $\Delta \eta$. We project the

385: matter in the $i$-th shell onto a spherical sheet at comoving

386: distance $\eta_i$ which is halfway between the the edges of the

387: shell ($i$ increases as one moves away from the observer).  Since we

388: shall be working in spherical coordinates it is advantageous to use

389: angular differential operators instead of spatial ones. We rewrite

390: \eqref{deflection} in terms of the angular gradient $\nabla_{\nhat}$

391: as

392: \beq

393: \label{deflection2}

394: d\bm\alpha=-\frac{2}{d_A(\eta)}\nabla_{\nhat} \Psi d\eta  .

395: \eeq

396: At the $j$-th shell at $\eta_j$, the deflection angle due to the

397: matter in the shell can be approximated by an integral of the

398: above:

399: \beqn

400: \bm\alpha^j&=&-\frac{2}{d_A(\eta_j)}\int_{\eta_j-\Delta\eta/2}^{\eta_j+\Delta\eta/2}

401: \nabla_{\nhat} \Psi(\tilde\eta\nhat;\tilde\eta) d\tilde \eta\\

402: &=&-\nabla_{\nhat} \phi^j(\nhat)  ,

403: \eeqn

404: where we have defined the 2-D potential on the sphere as

405: \beq

406: \phi^j(\nhat)=\frac{2}{d_A(\eta_j)}\int_{\eta_j-\Delta\eta/2}^{\eta_j+\Delta\eta/2}

407: \Psi(\tilde\eta\nhat;\tilde\eta)d\tilde\eta.

408: \eeq

409: Here, the notation $(\eta\nhat;\eta)$ signifies that the potential is evaluated at the conformal look-back time $\eta$, when the photon was at the position $\eta\nhat$.

410: The potential can be related to the mass overdensity in the shell

411: via  Poisson's equation, which reads

412: \beqn

413: \nabla^2_{\eta}\Psi&=&\frac{4\pi G}{c^2} 

414: \frac{\rho-\bar{\rho}}{\left( 1+z \right)^2}  ,

415: \eeqn

416: $\bar\rho$ being the mean matter density of the universe at 

417: redshift $z$. 

418: By integrating the above equation along the line of sight, one can arrive at a two dimensional version of the Poisson equation \citep{2003ApJ...592..699V}, 

419: \beqn

420: \label{2Dpoisson}

421: \nabla^2_{\nhat} \phi^j(\nhat)=\frac{8\pi G}{c^2} \frac{d_A(\eta_j)}{

422: (1+z_j)^{2}}\Delta_\Sigma^j(\nhat)

423: \eeqn

424: where the surface mass density

425: \beq

426: \label{def:Delta_Sigma}

427: \Delta_\Sig^j=\int_{\eta_j-\Delta\eta/2}^{\eta_j+\Delta\eta/2}(\rho-\bar{\rho})

428: d\tilde\eta  .

429: \eeq

430: Note that in going from the three dimensional to the two dimensional version, the term containing the radial derivatives of the Laplacian can be neglected \citep{2000ApJ...530..547J}. One can show that this term is small by expanding the potential $\Psi$ in Fourier modes $\bmm k$, with components $k_\parallel$ parallel to the line of sight and $k_\perp$ transverse to it.  Then, the ratio of the components of the line of sight integral in the parallel and transverse directions will be $\sim k_\parallel^2/k_\perp^2$. Due to cancellation  along the line of sight, only the modes with wavelengths comparable to the line of sight depth of each slice will survive the radial integral. These would be the modes with $k_\parallel \lesssim \frac{2\pi} {\Delta \eta}$. On the other hand, the transverse component gets most of its contribution from scales smaller than $\sim 100$ Mpc i.e. $\k_\perp \gg 2\pi/100 \sim 0.1$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Under the effective lensing approximation,  the projection is along the entire line of sight from zero redshift to the last scattering surface, $\Delta \eta \sim 10^4$ Mpc, giving $\k_\parallel \lesssim 10^{-3}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. Therefore, in this case the ratio of the radial and transverse components of the integral will be  $\sim k_\parallel^2/k_\perp^2 \ll 10^{-4}$. For a multiple plane case, we would typically employ $10$ lensing planes for which this ratio would be $\ll 10^{-2}$. The approximation will break down if we employ thin shells.  \par

431: Defining the field $K$ as

432: \beq

433: \label{def:K}

434: K^j(\nhat)=\frac{4\pi G}{c^2} \frac{d_A(\eta_j)}{

435: (1+z_j)^{2}}\Delta_\Sigma^j(\nhat)  ,

436: \eeq

437: \eqref{2Dpoisson} takes the form

438: \beq

439: \label{Phi_K}

440: \nabla^2_{\nhat} \phi^j(\nhat)=2 K^j(\nhat)  .

441: \eeq

442: It is convenient to define an angular surface mass density

443: $\Delta_\Sigma^\theta(\nhat)$ as the mass per steradian,

444: \beq

445: \Delta_\Sigma^{\theta j}(\nhat) =

446: \int_{\eta_j-\Delta\eta/2}^{\eta_j+\Delta\eta/2} (\rho-\bar{\rho})

447: \frac{d_A(\tilde\eta)^2}{(1+\tilde z)^3}  d\tilde\eta .

448: \eeq

449: The surface mass density defined in

450: \eqref{def:Delta_Sigma} is related to this through the relation

451: \beq

452: \label{def:sigma_theta}

453: \Delta_\Sigma=\Delta_\Sigma^{\theta}\frac{(1+z)^3}{d_A(\eta)^2}  .

454: \eeq

455: This implies the following form of \eqref{def:K},

456: \beq

457: \label{def:Kth}

458: K^j(\nhat)=\frac{4\pi G}{c^2} \frac{

459: (1+z_j)}{d_A(\eta_j)}\Delta_\Sigma^{\theta j}(\nhat)  .

460: \eeq

461: Equation (\ref{def:Kth}) is the key equation here. The quantity $K$

462: can be readily calculated once the mass density is radially projected

463: onto the spherical sheet. Expanding both sides of \eqref{Phi_K}

464: in spherical harmonics, one has the following relation between

465: the components:

466: \beq

467: \label{philm}

468: \phi_{\lm}=\frac{2}{l(l+1)}K_{\lm}  .

469: \eeq

470: It is interesting to note that the apparently divergent monopole $(l=0)$ modes in the lensing potential can be safely set to zero in all calculations, because a monopole term in the lensing potential does not contribute to the deflection field.

471: Being the transverse gradient of the potential, the deflection angle $\bm \alpha(\nhat)$ is a vector (spin 1) field defined on the sphere and can be synthesized from the spherical harmonic components of the potential in terms of vector spherical harmonics, as will be described in \S~\ref{Interpolation}. 

472: 

473: \subsection{\label{Effective_Lensing} Connection with effective

474: lensing quantities}

475: 

476: %\clearpage

477: \begin{figure}

478: \center

479: \includegraphics[scale=0.3]{f1.eps}

480: \caption{\label{SphericalTriangle} Geometry illustrating the point

481: remapping used in the text}

482: \end{figure}

483: %\clearpage

484: 

485: In weak lensing calculations, one often takes an effective approach,

486: in which one approximates the effect of deflectors along the entire

487: line of sight by a projected potential or a convergence which is

488: computed along a fiducial undeflected ray (often referred to as

489: the Born approximation). One therefore defines an effective lensing

490: potential out to comoving distance $\eta_s$ as

491: \beq

492: \phi^{eff}(\nhat)=2\int_0^{\eta_s} d\eta

493: \frac{d_A(\eta_s-\eta)}{d_A(\eta)d_A(\eta_s) }\Psi(\eta \nhat;\eta)  .

494: \eeq

495: In terms of the projected potential, the effective deflection

496: (see Eq.~\ref{finalpos}) is given  by the angular gradient,

497: $\bm{\tilde{\alpha}}= - \nabla_{\nhat} \phi^{eff}$. An effective

498: convergence is also defined in a similar manner:

499: \beqn

500: \k(\nhat)&=&\frac{1}{2} \nabla_{\nhat}^2 \phi^{eff}(\nhat)\nn\\

501: &=& \int d\eta \frac{d_A(\eta_s-\eta)d_A(\eta)}{d_A(\eta_s)}

502: \nabla_{\perp}^2 \Psi(\eta \nhat;\eta)  .

503: \eeqn

504: In terms of the fields $\phi^j$ and $K^j$ defined on the multiple

505: planes, these quantities are immediately identified as the following

506: sums,

507: \beqn

508: \phi^{eff}(\nhat)\simeq \sum_j

509: \frac{d_A(\eta_s-\eta_j)}{d_A(\eta_s)}\phi^j(\nhat)  ,\\

510: \label{eq:kappa}

511: \kappa(\nhat)\simeq \sum_j \frac{d_A(\eta_s-\eta_j)}{d_A(\eta_s)} K^j(\nhat) .

512: \eeqn

513: 

514: Once $\kappa$ is obtained one can go through the analog of equation

515: (\ref{philm}) and take its transverse gradient to obtain the effective deflection

516: $\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}$. Using this, one can find the source position corresponding to the observed position $\theta(0)$:

517: \beq

518: \label{eq:effective_lensing}

519: \bm \theta_s=\bm \theta(0)+\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}.

520: \eeq

521: In \S\ref{Results}, we shall use this effective or single plane

522: approximation to lens the CMB.

523: 

524: Equation (\ref{eq:effective_lensing}) is to be interpreted in the

525: following manner \citep{2002PhRvD..66l7301C}. 

526: The effective deflection angle is a tangent

527: vector at the undeflected position of the ray. The  original

528: position of the ray on the source, or unlensed, plane is to be found

529: by moving along a geodesic on the sphere in the direction of the

530: tangent vector and covering a length $\tilde{\alpha}$ of an arc. The

531: correct remapping equations can be easily derived from identities of

532: spherical triangles \citep{2005PhRvD..71h3008L}. For completeness,

533: we give the derivation here.

534: 

535: 

536: In Fig.~\ref{SphericalTriangle}, let the initial and final position of

537: the ray in question be the points A$\equiv(\theta,\phi)$ and B$\equiv

538: (\theta^\prime,\phi+\Delta\phi)$, respectively. The North pole of

539: the sphere is indicated as C, so that the dihedral angle at A is

540: also the angle between $\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}$ and $-\etheta$, so that

541: \beq

542: \tilde{\bm{\alpha}}=-\tilde\alpha \cos\delta \etheta+ \tilde\alpha

543: \sin\delta \ephi  .

544: \eeq

545: Now, applying the spherical cosine rule to the triangle ABC, we have

546: \beq

547: \cos\theta^\prime=\cos\theta\;\cos\tilde\alpha+\sin\theta\sin\tilde\alpha\cos\delta  ,

548: \eeq

549: and applying the sine rule

550: \beq

551: \sin\Delta\phi=\sin\tilde\alpha \frac{\sin\delta}{\sin\theta^\prime}  .

552: \eeq

553: We use these equations to remap points on the CMB sky and on

554: the intermediate spherical shells in the multiple plane case,

555: as described below.

556: \subsection{\label{Multiple_Plane} Multiple plane ray tracing}

557: %\clearpage

558: \begin{figure}

559: \center

560: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{f2.eps}

561: \caption{\label{multiPlane} Geometry illustrating the multiple

562: plane ray tracing method.}

563: \end{figure}

564: %\clearpage

565: 

566: In the multiple plane case, we shoot ray outwards from the common

567: center of the spherical shell (i.e. the observer) and follow

568: their trajectories out to the CMB plane, thereby studying the

569: time reversed version of the actual phenomenon.  We assume all

570: intermediate deflections are small, as is really the case.

571: Here we describe how we keep track of a ray propagating

572: between multiple planes, as shown in Fig.~\ref{multiPlane}. We

573: assume a flat cosmology for this purpose.  At some intermediate stage

574: of the ray propagation, let a ray be incident on the $i$-th plane at

575: the point A, where it gets deflected  and reaches the $i$+1-th plane

576: at the point D. The ray incident at A will not in general lie on

577: the same plane as defined by the deflected ray $\vec{AD}$ and the

578: center O of the sphere, which we also consider as the plane of the

579: figure. Assuming that we know the incidence angle $\bm{\beta_i}$,

580: we can obtain  the additional angle of deflection $\bm\alpha_i$

581: due to the matter on plane $i$ and compute

582: the net deflection $\bm\alpha_i+\bm\beta_i$. {Let us denote by  $\tilde{\bm\alpha}_i$, the effective angle, by which a ray has to be remapped from its observed position $\bm\theta(0)$ to its current position $\bm\theta_i$ on plane i, so that

583: \beq

584: \bm\theta_i = \bm\theta(0) + \tilde{\bm\alpha}_i .  

585: \eeq 

586: Obviously, $\tilde{\bm\alpha}_1=0$ and $\bm\theta_1 = \bm\theta(0)$.

587: Therefore, the effective angle $(\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{i+1}-\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{i})$ by which the ray has to be remapped from

588: point B to point D on  the shell $i$+1 can be readily calculated from

589: two descriptions of the arc BD,

590: \beq

591: \label{effective_angle_i+1}

592: \eta_{i+1} (\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{i+1}-\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{i})=(\eta_{i+1}-\eta_i)

593: (\bm\alpha_i+\bm\beta_i)  .

594: \eeq

595: In order to repeat this process for the ($i$+2)-th shell, one needs

596: to know the value of the new incidence angle $\bm\beta_{i+1}$. We

597: now equate two ways of finding the length of the arc AC,

598: \beq

599: \eta_i (\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{i+1}-\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{i})=(\eta_{i+1}-\eta_i) \bm\beta_{i+1}.

600: \eeq

601: Substituting $(\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{i+1}-\tilde{\bm{\alpha}}_{i})$ from

602: \eqref{effective_angle_i+1}, 

603: \beq

604: \label{incidence_angle_i+1}

605: \bm\beta_{i+1}=\frac{\eta_i}{\eta_{i+1}} (\bm\alpha_i+\bm\beta_i).

606: \eeq

607: Since we shoot the rays radially on the first plane,

608: $\bm\beta_1=0$; therefore equations (\ref{effective_angle_i+1})

609: and (\ref{incidence_angle_i+1}) can be used to propagate the ray

610: back to the CMB surface, which we take to be the $(N+1)$-th plane, i.e. $\bm\theta_s = \bm\theta_{N+1}$. Although we only discuss results obtained with the effective or single plane approximation here, the multiple plane version is straightforward to perform and will be reported elsewhere. 

611: }

612: \subsection{\label{Interpolation} Interpolation on the sphere}

613: In practice we have used the

614: \healpix\footnote{\url{http://healpix.jpl.nasa.gov}} \citep{gorski-2005-622} scheme to

615: represent fields on the sphere. At various stages of the lensing

616: calculation, an accurate algorithm for interpolation on the sphere

617: becomes a necessity.  In the effective lensing approximation,

618: the original positions of the rays

619: will in general be off pixel centers.  This implies

620: that the lensed CMB field is essentially generated by sampling

621: the unlensed CMB surface at points which are usually not pixel

622: centers. Hence, obtaining the lensed CMB field is essentially an

623: interpolation operation. In the case of multiple lensing planes,

624: it is again obvious that (except for the first plane, on which

625: we can shoot rays at pixel centers by way of convenience) the

626: deflection field itself has to be evaluated at off-center points on

627: all subsequent planes. So, together with the interpolation of the

628: temperature map. we need to go between spin-0 and spin-1 fields on

629: an arbitrary grid. Therefore, one needs, in general, a spherical

630: harmonic transform algorithm that can deal with an irregular grid

631: on the sphere.

632: 

633: For this purpose, we adopt the Non-isolatitude

634: Spherical Harmonic Transform (NISHT) algorithm proposed by

635: \cite{2004PhRvD..70j3501H}; details of the algorithm can be found

636: in Appendix A of that paper.  Here we have reproduced the key

637: equations for clarity, and described the salient

638: features of the general algorithm with special attention to aspects

639: which are relevant for the current application. 

640: 

641: The basic operation for generating the lensed CMB maps can be broken

642: up into two steps:\\

643: \indent{\bf L1.} generating the deflection field on the sphere at

644: points where the rays land from the previous plane, and\\

645: \indent{\bf L2.}  sampling the unlensed CMB surface at the source-plane

646: positions of the rays to generate the lensed CMB field.

647: 

648:  Of course, in case of the effective lensing simulation, one can

649:  conveniently generate the deflection field at the pixel centers in

650:  step~{\bf L1} above. As step~{\bf L2} is a series of operations

651:  involving scalars and therefore conceptually simpler, we shall

652:  explain the NISHT algorithm in relation to this step. Step~{\bf

653:  L1}, which involves spin-1 fields on the sphere, is conceptually

654:  similar to the spin-0 case. 

655: 

656: The problem in step~{\bf L2} is that we know the CMB temperature

657: field $T(\nhat)$ on the \healpix  grid $\set{\nhat}$ as well as the

658: source-plane positions of the rays $\set{\nhat'}$ on the polar cap, and we

659: want to sample the CMB field at $\set{\nhat'}$. Suppose, by applying

660: the steps for spherical harmonic analysis (as will be described later),

661: we have the spherical harmonic components, $T_\lm$ of the temperature

662: field. Now, we need to synthesize the field using these $T_\lm$'s at

663: the points $\set{\nhat'}$. This operation can be formally written as

664: \beq

665: T(\nhat') = \sum_{\ell=0}^{\ell_{\mathrm{max}}}\sum_{m = -\ell}^{\ell}

666: T_\lm Y_\lm(\nhat'),

667: \eeq

668: where $\lmax$ is the Nyquist multipole and is set

669: by the resolution of the \healpix  grid as, $\lmax \simeq

670: \pi/\sqrt{\pixarea }$  (cf. equation \ref{eqn:pixarea}).

671: This synthesis operation can be split into the following four steps

672: (Eqns.~\ref{Latitude_Transform} through \ref{Interpolation_Weights}

673: are essentially reproduced for completeness from Appendix A of

674: \citealt{2004PhRvD..70j3501H}):

675: \begin{enumerate}

676: \item {\emph{ Coarse Grid Latitude Transform}}\\ 

677: As the first step,

678: we perform a transform in the latitude direction on an equally spaced

679: set of points, $(\theta =\pi \alpha/L, \phi = 0)$, where $\alpha$ is

680: an integer in the range $0\le\alpha\le	L$ and $L$ is 

681: a small integral multiple of some power of two

682: such that $L>\lmax$:

683: \beq

684: \label{Latitude_Transform}

685: T_m(\theta = \frac{\alpha}{L}\pi) = \sum_{\ell=\modu{m}}^{\lmax}

686: T_\lm Y_\lm(\theta = \frac\alpha L \pi, \phi = 0)  .

687: \eeq

688: The above calculation  involves $O(\lmax^2 L)$ operations.

689: \item \emph{Refinement of Latitude Grid}\\

690:   In this step we reduce the $\theta$ grid spacing from

691:   $\frac{\alpha}{L}\pi$ to  $\frac{\alpha}{L'}\pi$ where $L'>L$. We

692:   take advantage of the fact the sampling theorem can be applied

693:   to a linear combination of spherical harmonics which is band

694:   limited $(\ell \le \lmax)$ in the  multipole space, and hence

695:   can be written as a Fourier sum,

696: \beq

697: T_m(\theta) = \sum_{n=-\lmax}^{\lmax} C_{m,n} e^{in\theta}.

698: \eeq

699: We determine the coefficients $C_{m,n}$ via a fast Fourier

700: Transform (FFT) of length $2L$ and evaluate $T_m(\theta =

701: \frac{\alpha}{L'}\pi)$ using an inverse FFT of length $2L'$. This

702: step saves us the expensive generation of Associated Legendre

703: Polynomials on the finer grid. Each FFT  requires $O(\lmax L

704: \log(L))$ operations.

705: \item\emph{ Projection onto  Equicylindrical Grid}\\

706: Next, we perform the standard SHT step of taking an FFT in the

707: longitudinal direction to generate $T(\theta = \frac{\alpha}{L'}\pi,

708: \phi = \frac \gamma {L'} \pi)$,

709: \beq

710: T(\theta = \frac{\alpha}{L'}\pi, \phi = \frac \gamma {L'} \pi) =

711: \sum_{m = -\lmax}^{ m  =\lmax} T_m(\theta) e^{i m \phi}.

712: \eeq

713:  After this step we have  synthesized the map on an Equicylindrical

714:  projection (ECP) grid. The operation count for this step is $

715:  O(L'^2 \log  L')$ and the total operation count including this step

716:  is $O(\lmax^3)$.

717: \item \emph{Interpolation onto the final grid}\\

718: In the final step, given a required position $\nhat'$, we find the

719: nearest grid point in the ECP grid and determine the fractional

720: offset, $(\delta \alpha, \delta \gamma)$ between the two points,

721: \beq

722: \alpha + \delta \alpha = L' \frac \theta \pi; \: \gamma +\delta

723: \gamma = L' \frac \phi \pi.

724: \eeq

725: Then we perform a two dimensional polynomial interpolation using

726: $(2K)^2$ points around the nearest grid point, obtaining the value

727: at the required point as

728: \beq

729: T\simeq \sum_{\mu=-K+1}^{K} w_{\mu}(\delta_\alpha) \sum_{\nu=-K+1}^{K}

730: w_\nu(\delta_\gamma) T(\frac{\alpha+\mu}{L'}\pi, \frac {\gamma+\nu} {L'} \pi),

731: \eeq

732: with the weights computed using Lagrange's interpolation formula,

733: \beq

734: \label{Interpolation_Weights}

735: w_\rho(\delta) =

736: \frac{(-1)^{K-\rho}}{(K-\rho)!(K-1+\rho)!(\delta-\rho)}

737: \prod_{\sigma=-K+1}^{K} (\delta - \sigma).

738: \eeq

739: \end{enumerate}

740: {The inverse of the synthesis operation described above is the analysis operation, in which the spherical harmonic coefficients of a map defined on an irregular grid is needed.  This  can be thought of as the transpose of the above operations applied in reverse, and hence can be accomplished in an equal number of steps.}

741: 

742: The above algorithm can be easily extended to deal with vector

743: and tensor fields on the sphere. For a vector (spin 1) field,

744: the natural basis of expansion are the vector spherical harmonics,

745: \beqn

746: \nn \bmm Y_\lm^{V} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{\ell(\ell+1)}}\nabla Y_\lm\\

747: \bmm Y_\lm^{A} &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{\ell(\ell+1)}} \nhat\times

748: \nabla Y_\lm,

749: \eeqn

750: where the superscripts $V$ and $A$ represent the ``vector-like''

751: and the ``axial-vector-like'' components, respectively.

752: In terms of these a  vector field $\bmm v(\nhat)$ can be expanded as,

753: \beq

754: \bmm v(\nhat)  =\sum_{\ell=0}^{\ell_{\mathrm{max}}}\sum_{m = -\ell}^{\ell} V_\lm \bmm Y_\lm^{V}(\nhat) + A_\lm

755: \bmm Y_\lm^{A}(\nhat).

756: \eeq

757: Therefore, given the ($V_\lm,A_\lm$) components one can go through

758: the analogs of the above steps for the scalar field synthesis. In

759: fact, to accomplish step {\bf L1} of the lensing algorithm, we go

760: from the convergence field $K$ to the deflection field,

761: \beqn

762: \nn \bm \alpha = - \nabla \phi &=& -\sum_{\ell=0}^{\ell_{\mathrm{max}}}\sum_{m = -\ell}^{\ell}  \phi_\lm \nabla

763: Y_\lm \\

764: \nn & = & - \sum_{\ell=0}^{\ell_{\mathrm{max}}}\sum_{m = -\ell}^{\ell}\frac{2}{\ell(\ell+1)}K_\lm \nabla Y_\lm\\

765: & = &  - \sum_{\ell=0}^{\ell_{\mathrm{max}}}\sum_{m = -\ell}^{\ell} \frac{2}{\sqrt{\ell(\ell+1)}} K_\lm \bmm Y_\lm^{V}.

766: \eeqn

767: Therefore, we go from the $K$ field on the polar cap

768: to the spherical harmonic components $K_\lm$ using the

769: analysis algorithm for scalar fields; then we divide the result

770: by $\sqrt{\ell(\ell+1)}/2$. This defines the vector field harmonic

771: components as $(V_\lm,A_\lm) = (-2 K_\lm/\sqrt{\ell(\ell+1)},0)$

772: from which we synthesize the deflection field at the required

773: points. 

774: 

775: The accuracy of the interpolation can be controlled by two

776: parameters: the rate at which  the finer grid oversamples the field

777: i.e. the ratio $L' / \lmax$, and the order of the polynomial $K$

778: used for the interpolation. Increasing either of these increases the

779: accuracy. In this paper we have used $L' = 4 \lmax$ and $K=10$,

780: which yields a fractional interpolation accuracy per Fourier mode

781: of $\sim 10^{-9}$.

782: 

783: \section{Generation of the lensing planes}\label{Plane_Generation}

784: {

785: An $N$-body dark matter simulation was performed to generate the

786: large scale structure; this same simulation has been discussed 

787: in \cite{2007ApJ...664..149S} and \cite{2007ApJ...663..139B},

788: so we refer the reader to these papers for more details.

789: Briefly, a spatially flat $\Lambda$CDM

790: cosmology was used, with a total matter density parameter $\Om=0.26$

791: and vacuum energy density

792: $\OL=0.74$. The scalar spectral index of the primordial power

793: spectrum was set to $n_s=0.95$ and the linear amplitude

794: normalized to $\sigma_8=0.77$. The present day value of the Hubble

795: parameter  $H_0=72 \: \hunit$.

796: A periodic box of size

797: $L=1000 \hmpc$ was used with $N=1024^3$ particles; therefore the

798: particle mass was $m_p=6.72\E{10} h^{-1}\msol$. The cubic spline softening

799: length was set to 16.28 $\hmpc$.

800: }

801:  

802: \subsection{\label{Projection} From the box to the sphere}

803: {

804: We create the lensing planes on-the-fly from the $N$-body simulation. 

805: At each large time step (set by a Courant condition such that no

806: particle moves more than $\sim 122h^{-1}$kpc in this time)

807: the positions and velocities of the particles in a thin shell

808: are saved.  The mean radius of the shell is the comoving

809: distance to the redshift at that time, and the width 

810: (a few $\hmpc$) corresponds to the time step.  

811: Each shell is centered on the origin of the

812: simulation and covers one octant of the sky ($x,y,z>0$).

813: Note that for shells with radii greater than the simulation box

814: size, periodic copies of the box are used.  Thus a given structure

815: will appear more than once in the full light cone, albeit at 

816: different times and viewed from different angles.  }

817: We then Euler rotate the

818: coordinate axes so that the new $z$-axis passes through the centroid

819: of the octant. This is done to make the centroid correspond to the

820: North Pole on the \healpix  sphere.  We use the \healpix  routine

821: {\tt vec2pix} to find the pixel that contains the particle's

822: position on the sky.

823: We then place the mass of the

824: particle into that pixel by assigning to it the surface mass density

825: $\Sigma_p =m_p/\pixarea$, where \pixarea	is the area of a

826: pixel in steradians (cf. equation \ref{eqn:pixarea}).  

827: Thus, if $n$ particles fall inside the beam

828: defined by a pixel, then the pixel ends up having a surface mass

829: density of $n\Sigma_p$.  To simplify the geometry, we save only those

830: particles which fall inside a Polar Cap like region defined by the

831: disc of maximum radius that can be cut out from the octant (see

832: Fig.~\ref{fig:polar cap}). 

833: 

834: %\clearpage

835: \begin{figure}[h]

836: \center

837: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.3]{f3.eps}

838: \caption[CMBVIEW]{ \label{fig:polar cap} Illustration of the

839: Polar Cap geometry. The figure shows a 3-D rendering of the sphere

840: using the CMBVIEW\footnotemark  software, looking down towards the

841: North Pole. The lightly shaded triangular region correspond to the

842: positions of the particles in the octant from the $N$-body simulation

843: box at a typical time step.

844: The darker dots define what we call the Polar Cap

845: in the text. The surface mass density of the pixels

846: inside this Polar Cap region are saved in shells out to $z$=4. }

847: \end{figure}

848: %\clearpage

849: \footnotetext{http://www.jportsmouth.com/code/CMBview/cmbview.html}

850: By the end of the

851: run, $449$ such planes were produced from the simulation,

852: spanning $z=\maxz$ to $z=0$.

853: As these are far too many planes for the purpose of lensing,

854: we reduce them into $\sim 50$ planes by dividing up the original

855: planes into roughly equal comoving distance bins and adding up

856: the surface mass density pixel by pixel for all planes that fall

857: inside a bin to yield a single plane per bin. Hereafter, we shall

858: refer to the original planes from the TPM run as the TPM-planes

859: and the small number of planes constructed by projecting them as

860: the lensing-planes.

861:   

862: The angular radius of the Polar Cap is given by

863: $\theta_\mathrm{cap}=\arccos(2/\sqrt{6})$, and the solid angle

864: subtended by it is $\caparea=2\pi (1-\cos\theta_\mathrm{cap})=1.981

865: \:  \steradian =3785 \:\mathrm{sq-deg}$. Due to pixelation, the true

866: total area $\tildecaparea$

867: of the \ncap pixels that make up the Polar Cap is not

868: exactly equal to $\caparea$, but rather

869: \beq

870: \tildecaparea=\ncap \pixarea     .

871: \eeq

872: We will denote the surface mass density in pixel $p$ as $\sigma_p$

873: which has units of mass per steradian.

874: 

875: In \healpix, the resolution is controlled by the parameter NSIDE,

876: which determines  the number, $N_\mathrm{pix}$ of equal area pixels

877: into which the entire sphere is pixelated, through the relation 

878: $N_{\mathrm{pix}}=12 \times\mathrm{NSIDE}^2$,

879: so that the area of each pixel becomes,

880: \beq

881: \label{eqn:pixarea}

882: \pixarea=\frac{4\pi}{N_{\mathrm{pix}}}\:\: \mathrm{steradians}.

883: \eeq

884: The angular resolution is often expressed through the number

885: $\theta_\mathrm{res}=\sqrt{\pixarea}$   . It is also useful to define the fraction area of the sphere covered by the polar cap as,

886: \beq

887: \fsky = \frac{\tildecaparea}{4\pi} .

888: \eeq 

889: 

890: For results presented in this paper the resolution parameter NSIDE

891: was set to \nsidenow,  which corresponds to an angular resolution

892: of \angresnow.

893: 

894: 

895: 

896: \subsection{\label{Sigma_to_Kappa} From surface density to

897: convergence}

898: To construct the quantities required for lensing, we first convert

899: the surface mass density maps into surface over-density maps $\Delta

900: \Sig^{\theta}$  as defined in \eqref{def:sigma_theta}. It is straightforward to obtain the  $K$-maps defined in \eqref{def:Kth}

901: from the above map. Finally, \eqref{eq:kappa} is used to

902: obtain the effective convergence map on the Polar Cap. It is evident

903: that the convergence map constructed out of the simulated lensing

904: planes in this way will only contain the contribution from large

905: scale structure up to the redshift of the farthest lensing plane

906: ($z =  4.05$). However, to accurately lens the CMB we need to add

907: in the contribution from higher redshifts up to the last scattering

908: surface. We do this by generating a Gaussian random field from a

909: theoretical power spectrum of the convergence between $z =  4.05$

910: and $z = z_{\mathrm{CMB}}$, {computed from the matter power spectrum obtained using CAMB, 

911: and adding it onto the convergence map from the TPM simulation}.

912: \subsection{The unlensed CMB map}

913: We used the \texttt{synfast} facility in \healpix  to generate

914: the unlensed CMB map. This takes as an input a theoretical unlensed

915: power spectrum and synthesizes a Gaussian-random realization

916: of the unlensed CMB field. For computing the theoretical power

917: spectrum we have used the publicly available Boltzmann transfer

918: code CAMB\footnote{\url{http://www.camb.info}}, with the same set

919: of cosmological parameters as used for the large scale structure

920: simulation.

921: \section{Measuring Angular Power

922: Spectra}\label{Angular_Power_Spectra}

923: At several stages we compute the power spectra of the maps to

924: compare with theory. For example, to verify that we have created the

925: convergence map correctly, the angular power spectrum of the $\kappa$

926: map is computed and compared to the theory. Also, we do the same for

927: the lensed map on the polar cap. We use the {\tt map2alm} facility

928: of \healpix  to perform a spherical harmonic decomposition of a

929: map $T(\nhat)$ on the Polar Cap. The resulting spherical harmonic

930: components, i.e.  $\tilde T^{\mathrm{pix}}_{\lm}$'s, are then combined to obtain

931: the pseudo-power spectrum,

932: \beq

933: \label{cl-tilde-pix}

934: \tilde\cl^{\mathrm{pix}}=\frac{1}{2\ell+1}\sum_{m = -\ell}^{\ell}

935: \modu{\tilde T^{\mathrm{pix}}_{\ell m}}^2 .

936: \eeq

937: There are two effects that need to be taken into account before

938: comparing the above result with theory, namely the finite pixel size,

939: signified by the superscript, $\mathrm{``pix''}$ and the incomplete

940: sky coverage, represented by the tilde.

941: 

942: {To simplify the following discussion of pixelation effects, for the moment we shall ignore the effect of the incomplete sky 

943: coverage. Also, we shall use the shorthand notation $\Sigma_\lm$ to denote the sum $ \sum_{\ell=0}^{\infty} \sum_{m = -\ell}^{\ell}$.}

944:   Due to the finite pixel size, a field realized on the HEALPix sphere

945:  is a smoothed version of the true underlying field, i.e. the value

946:  of the field in pixel $i$ is given by

947: \beq

948: T^{\mathrm{pix}(i)} = \int d^2\nhat w^{(i)}(\nhat) T(\nhat)  ,

949: \eeq

950: where $w^{(i)}$ is the window function of the $i$-th pixel as is

951: given by

952: \beq

953: w^{(i)}(\nhat) =\cases{\Omega^{-1}_{\mathrm{pix}}&inside pixel $i$,\cr

954:  0&elsewhere.}

955: \eeq

956: Expanding the true field $T$ in terms of spherical harmonics as

957: \beqn

958: \nn T(\nhat)  = \sum_{\lm} T_{\lm} Y_{\lm}(\nhat),

959: \eeqn

960: we have

961: \beq

962: \label{pixelized_field_lms}

963: T^{\mathrm{pix}(i)} = \sum_{\lm} w^{(i)}_{\lm} T_{\lm},

964: \eeq

965: where

966: \beq

967: \label{wlm}

968: w^{(i)}_\lm = \int d^2\nhat w^{(i)}(\nhat) Y_\lm(\nhat)

969: \eeq

970: is the spherical harmonic transform of the pixel window function. In

971: the \healpix  scheme, due to the azimuthal  variation of the pixel

972: shapes over the sky, especially in the polar cap area, a complete

973: analysis would require the computation of these coefficients for each

974: and every pixel. However, even for a moderate NSIDE, this calculation

975: becomes computationally unfeasible. Therefore, it is customary to

976: ignore the azimuthal variation and rewrite \eqref{wlm} as

977: \beq

978: \label{wlm_azimuth}

979: w_\lm^{(i)} = w_\ell^{(i)} Y_\lm(\nhat_i),

980: \eeq

981:  where one defines an azimuthally averaged window function

982: \beq w_\ell^{(i)} = \frac{4\pi}{(2\ell+1)} \left[

983: \sum_{m=-\ell}^{\ell} \modu{w_\lm}^2 \right]^{1/2}.

984: \eeq

985: From equations (\ref{wlm_azimuth}) and (\ref{pixelized_field_lms})

986: it immediately follows that the estimate of the power spectrum of

987: the pixelated field is given by

988: \beq

989: \cl^{\mathrm{pix}} = w_\ell^2 \av{T_\lm T_\lm^*} = w_\ell^2

990: \cl

991: \eeq

992: where one defines the pixel averaged window function,

993: \beq

994: w_\ell = \left(\frac1{N_{\mathrm{pix}}} \sum_{i=0}^{N_{\mathrm{pix}-1}}

995: (w_\ell^{(i)})^2\right)^{1/2}.

996: \eeq

997: This function is available for $\ell<4\times $NSIDE in the \healpix  distribution. We take

998: out the effect of the pixel window by dividing the computed power

999: spectrum by the square of the above function. {Coming back to the case at hand, where we

1000: have both pixel and incomplete sky effects, we recover the power spectrum $\tilde\cl$ after correcting for the pixel window function in this manner.}

1001: 

1002: The second and more important effect that one needs to take into

1003: account results from the fact that our field is defined only inside

1004: the polar cap. This is equivalent to multiplying a full sky map

1005: with a mask which  has value unity inside the polar cap and zero

1006: outside. As is well known, such a mask leads to a coupling between various

1007: multipoles, leading to a power spectrum which is  biased away from the

1008: true value. As this effect tends to move power across multipoles,

1009: the problem is	more acute for highly colored power spectra like

1010: the CMB. 

1011: 

1012: Let us denote the effective all-sky mask with $W$, where

1013: \beq

1014: \label{eq:polcapwindow}

1015: W(\nhat) =\cases{1 &	      {inside the polar cap,}\cr

1016: 0 &  elsewhere.}

1017: \eeq

1018: The spherical harmonic components of the masked field is therefore

1019: given by

1020: \beqn

1021: \tilde T_\lm &=& \int d^2\nhat T(\nhat) W(\nhat) Y^*_\lm(\nhat)\\

1022: & = & \sum_{\ell'm'} T_\lmprime \int  d^2\nhat Y_{\ell' m'} (\nhat)

1023: W(\nhat)  Y^*_\lm(\nhat)

1024: \eeqn

1025: and the measured power spectrum by \citep[see for

1026: example][]{2002ApJ...567....2H}

1027: \beqn

1028: \label{pseudocl}

1029: \nn{\tilde C_{\ell_1}} &=& \frac1{(2\ell_1+1)}\sum_{m_1 =

1030: -\ell_1}^{\ell_1} \av{\tilde T_\lmone \tilde T_\lmone^*}\\

1031: & = & \sum_{\ltwo} M_{\lone\ltwo} C_\ltwo

1032: \eeqn

1033: where $C_\ltwo$ is the true power spectrum and $M$ is the mode

1034: coupling matrix given by

1035: \beq

1036: \label{Ml1l2}

1037: M_{\lone\ltwo} = \frac{(2\ltwo+1)}{4\pi} \sum_{\lthree} (2\lthree+1)

1038: {\cal W}_{\lthree} \left(

1039: \begin{array}{ccc}

1040: 0 & 0 & 0\\

1041: \lone & \ltwo & \lthree

1042: \end{array}

1043:  \right)^2,

1044: \eeq

1045: with the power spectrum of the mask defined as 

1046: \beq

1047: {\cal W}_{\ell}  = \frac1{2\ell+1} \sum_m \modu{W_\lm}^2,

1048: \eeq$W_\lm$ being the spherical harmonic components of the mask

1049: $W(\nhat)$.

1050: 

1051: For a polar cap with angular radius $\Theta$, this function is

1052: analytically known to be \citep{Dahlen:2007sv}

1053: \beq

1054: \label{w_l_cap}

1055: {\cal W}_{\ell}^{\mathrm{cap}} = \frac \pi{(2\ell+1)^2} \left[P_{\ell -

1056: 1}(\cos \Theta) - P_{\ell+1}( \cos\Theta\right)]^2.

1057: \eeq

1058: where $P_\ell$	is a  Legendre Polynomial of order $\ell$ and

1059: $P_{-1}(\mu) = 1. $ 

1060: 

1061: %\clearpage

1062: \begin{figure}

1063:   \center

1064:   \includegraphics[scale=0.4]{f4.eps}

1065:   \caption{\label{ModeCoupling} Effect of apodization of the

1066:   window function. The continuous line is the unlensed CMB power

1067:   spectrum and the dashed line is the lensed one. Both have been

1068:   scaled by  $\fsky^{\mathrm{eff}}$, the effective fractional sky

1069:   coverage (see text). The gray filled and open circles labeled

1070:   ``Tophat'', represent, respectively, the theoretical unlensed

1071:   and lensed power spectra convolved with a window function that

1072:   is unity inside the polar cap and zero outside. The black filled

1073:   and open circles represent the same quantities, but in the case

1074:   of a window which is apodized at the edge of the polar cap, as

1075:   discussed in the text. Aliasing of power to higher multipoles

1076:   due to mode coupling is significantly reduced in the latter

1077:   case. We use the apodized window to mask the polar cap maps for

1078:   computing various power spectra, and use the corresponding theory

1079:   power spectrum convolved  with the same window for comparing

1080:   our results with theory. (\emph{Inset:} The mode coupling matrix

1081:   $M_{\lone\ltwo}$ as  a function of $\ell_1$, for $\ell_2=3000$,

1082:   showing the reduction in the power in off-diagonal elements as

1083:   a result of apodization.)  }

1084: \end{figure}

1085: %\clearpage

1086: 

1087: The  window function in \eqref{eq:polcapwindow} corresponding to the

1088: polar cap is a ``tophat'' in the sense that it abruptly falls to zero

1089: at the edge. The power spectrum (\eqref{w_l_cap}) of this window

1090: has an oscillatory behavior showing a lot of power over a large range

1091: of multipoles, an effect sometimes called \emph{ringing}.  Ringing

1092: causes the mode coupling matrix, $M_{\ell \ell^\prime}$  to develop

1093: large off-diagonal terms, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{ModeCoupling},

1094: and consequently the value of the measured power spectrum at any

1095: multipole (\eqref{pseudocl})  has non-trivial contributions

1096: from many neighboring multipoles. This causes the measured power

1097: spectrum to be	biased, and its effect is particularly evident for

1098: power spectra with a sharp fall-off such as the CMB. As is evident from

1099: Fig.~\ref{ModeCoupling},  the effect of mode coupling due to the

1100: polar cap becomes a serious problem for the lensed and unlensed

1101: power spectra starting at moderately low multipoles ($\ell \sim

1102: 2000$). Although in principle one could compare the measured power

1103: spectrum with a theoretical power spectrum which has been convolved

1104: with the same mode coupling matrix, the effect is so strong in this

1105: case that the lensed and unlensed spectra almost overlap each other.

1106: This problem can be mitigated in principle by inverting a binned

1107: version of the mode coupling matrix and thereby decorrelating

1108: the power spectra. However an easier and less

1109: computationally expensive solution can be achieved

1110: in the following manner. 

1111: 

1112: The off diagonal terms of the mode coupling matrix can be reduced

1113: significantly by apodizing the polar cap window function. Parenthetically,

1114:  we note that there exists a general method of generating tapers on a cut-sky map, so as to minimize the effect of  mode coupling. This is referred to as the multi-taper method \citep[S.~Das, A.~Hajian and D.~N.~Spergel, 2007, in preparation;][]{Dahlen:2007sv}. However, for our purpose, it suffices to define a simpler apodizing window as

1115: \beq

1116: \label{polcapwindow}

1117: W(\nhat) =

1118: \cases{

1119: 1 &	      {for } $\theta<\theta_0<\capangle$\cr

1120: \sin(\frac\pi2

1121: \frac{\theta_{\mathrm{cap}}-\theta}{\theta_{\mathrm{cap}}-\theta_0}) & {for } $ \theta_0<\theta<\capangle $\cr

1122: 0 &  {for } $\theta > \capangle $  .}

1123: \eeq

1124: The power spectrum of this window can be easily computed using

1125: \healpix, and thus the mode coupling matrix can be readily

1126: generated using \eqref{Ml1l2}. {We found that an apodization window with $(\theta_{\mathrm{cap}}-\theta_0) \simeq 1.2$ degree, corresponding to $\sim 80$ pixels, works extremely well without eating into too much of the map.}

1127: A section of the mode coupling matrix and the corresponding convolved power spectrum are displayed

1128: in Fig.~\ref{ModeCoupling}. This figure shows that the power

1129: spectrum convolved with the apodized window function has negligible

1130: mode coupling.  Parenthetically, 

1131: it is interesting to note that

1132: simply scaling the theory power spectrum by the fraction of the

1133: sky covered, $\fsky$, seems to do a good job in mimicking the effect

1134: of the partial sky coverage, at least for the lower multipoles. In

1135: fact, this approximation is an exact result for a white power

1136: spectrum. However, when the window is apodized, the effective area of

1137: coverage, $\fsky^{\mathrm{eff}}= \int W^2(\nhat) d^2\nhat /4\pi$, goes down a little (by $\sim 2.5\%$

1138: for our apodization). We use  $\fsky^{\mathrm{eff}}$ scaled theory

1139: power spectra only in some plots in this paper. For the analysis, we

1140: perform the full mode coupling calculation. Therefore, when comparing

1141: the power spectrum of some quantity defined on the polar cap with

1142: theoretical predictions, we first multiply the map by the apodized

1143: window and compare the resulting power spectrum with the theoretical

1144: power spectrum	mode-coupled through the same weighting window.

1145: 

1146: 

1147: \section{Results}\label{Results}

1148: We illustrate the algorithm with an effective lensing simulation

1149: at the \healpix  resolution of $NSIDE=4096$. Since some rays end

1150: up outside the polar cap after lensing, we have actually used

1151: an unlensed CMB realization (using the {\tt synfast} facility

1152: of \healpix) on an area larger than our fiducial polar cap to

1153: accommodate those rays. As the gradient of the lensing potential is

1154: ill defined at the edge of the polar cap, we ignore a ring of pixels

1155: near the edge of the lensed map for all subsequent analyses. It is

1156: particularly instructive to look at the difference of the lensed

1157: and the unlensed maps, as shown in Fig.~\ref{Difference_Map}, as

1158: it shows the large scale correlations imprinted on the CMB due to

1159: the large scale modes in the deflection field. 

1160: 

1161: We compute the angular power spectrum of the lensed and unlensed

1162: CMB maps using an apodized weighting scheme as discussed in

1163: \S\ref{Angular_Power_Spectra}. The resulting power spectra

1164: are displayed in Fig.~\ref{LensedCMBcls} for the entire range

1165: of multipoles analyzed, and are compared with the mode-coupled

1166: theoretical power spectra.  The theoretical lensed CMB power

1167: spectrum used for the calculation was generated with

1168: the CAMB code, using the all-sky correlation function technique

1169: \citep{2005PhRvD..71j3010C} and including nonlinear corrections

1170: to the matter power spectrum.  In Fig.~\ref{LensedCMBclsZOOM},

1171: we show a zoomed-in version of the lensed power spectrum, in the

1172: multipole range $500 <\ell<3500$. From visual inspection of these

1173: plots it is evident that the simulation does a good job

1174: in reproducing the theoretically expected lensed power spectrum,

1175: at least in the range of multipoles over which the computation

1176: of the theoretical power spectrum is robust.  We defer a detailed

1177: comparison of the simulation to the theory to

1178: \S\ref{Tests_for_lensed_CMB}.

1179: %\clearpage

1180: \begin{figure}

1181: \center

1182: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f5.eps}

1183: \caption{\label{Difference_Map} The  Polar Cap map obtained after subtracting

1184: the unlensed CMB map from the lensed CMB map. {To enhance the contrast, we have remapped the color scale to the range $(-2\sigma,2\sigma)$, $\sigma$ being the standard deviation of the map.} }

1185: \end{figure}

1186: 

1187: \begin{figure}

1188: \center

1189: \includegraphics[scale=0.37]{f6.eps}

1190: \caption{\label{LensedCMBcls} The lensed and unlensed CMB

1191: angular power spectra obtained from the simulation compared

1192: with the theoretical models. The red and orange dots represent,

1193: respectively, the lensed and unlensed angular power spectra

1194: obtained from the polar cap using the methods described in \S

1195: \ref{Angular_Power_Spectra}. The  solid black curve signifies the

1196: theoretical unlensed power spectrum taking into account the

1197: mode coupling due to the apodized polar cap window function. The

1198: blue solid curve represents the same for the lensed power spectrum.}

1199: \end{figure}

1200: \begin{figure}

1201: \center

1202: \includegraphics[scale=0.37]{f7.eps}

1203: \caption{\label{LensedCMBclsZOOM} Lensed CMB angular power spectrum

1204: in the multipole range $500 <\ell<3500$ obtained from the simulation

1205: compared with the theoretical model. The red dots represent

1206: the lensed angular power spectrum obtained from the polar cap using

1207: the methods described in \S \ref{Angular_Power_Spectra}. The solid black  

1208: curve signifies the theoretical lensed CMB power spectrum taking

1209: into account the mode coupling due to the apodized polar cap window

1210: function. The dotted black curve represents the same for the theoretical

1211: unlensed power spectrum and is shown here for contrast to the

1212: lensed case.}

1213: \end{figure}

1214: %\clearpage

1215: 

1216: \section{Tests}\label{Tests}

1217: \subsection{Tests for the mass sheets}

1218: 

1219: In this section

1220: we perform some sanity checks to ensure that the projection from

1221: the simulation box onto the Polar Cap has been properly performed.

1222: We first test that the total mass in each slice is equal to the

1223: theoretical mass expected from the mean cosmology, the later being

1224: given by

1225: \beq

1226: \mslice^{\mathrm{theory}}=\Om \rcr \bar \eta^2 \tildecaparea

1227: \Delta \eta

1228: \eeq

1229: where $\Delta\eta$ is the comoving thickness of the slice at a

1230: comoving distance $\bar\eta$. We compare this quantity with

1231: \beq

1232: \mslice=\sum_{i=1}^{\ncap}\sigma_{i}\pixarea

1233: \eeq

1234: which is the total mass on the plane from the simulation. 

1235: The percentage difference between the two is depicted  

1236: in Fig.~\ref{fig:binnedmasscompare} 

1237: for the lensing-planes. Notice that the  agreement

1238: is good to within 0.5\% for the high redshift planes, in which the

1239: solid angle $\caparea$ corresponds to a large comoving area. For

1240: low redshifts there are large variations due to the fact that

1241: matter is highly clustered and $\caparea$ corresponds to a small

1242: comoving area. These fluctuations at low redshift represent the

1243: chance inclusion or exclusion of large dark matter halos within

1244: the light cone.

1245: %\clearpage

1246: \begin{figure}

1247: \center

1248: \includegraphics[scale=0.37]{f8.eps}

1249: \caption{\label{fig:binnedmasscompare}The mass in the lensing-slices

1250: compared with that expected from theory.}

1251: \end{figure}

1252: %\clearpage

1253: 

1254: Next, we make sure that the probability density function (PDF)

1255: of the surface mass density is well behaved for each plane, and

1256: is well modeled by analytic PDFs such as the  lognormal \citep{2001ApJ...561...22K,2002ApJ...571..638T} or the

1257: model proposed by \cite{2006ApJ...645....1D}.  In 

1258: Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfcompare}

1259: we show these two models over-plotted on the PDFs drawn

1260: from the forty-five lensing-planes. 

1261: 

1262: The model of \cite{2006ApJ...645....1D} is

1263: a better fit to the simulation than the lognormal, especially at 

1264: high surface mass density. Note in that

1265: paper the authors used the first year WMAP parameters, whereas the

1266: present simulation is run with the WMAP 3-year parameters, including

1267: a significantly different $\sigma_8$. The fact that the model still

1268: represents the simulation well suggests that it is quite general.

1269: %\clearpage

1270: \begin{figure}[h]

1271: \center

1272: \includegraphics[scale=0.37]{f9.eps}

1273: \caption{\label{fig:pdfcompare} The probability density function

1274: (PDF) of the surface mass density in the lensing-planes (circles) compared

1275: with the lognormal (dashed line)  and the \cite{2006ApJ...645....1D}

1276: model (solid line).  }

1277: \end{figure}

1278: %\clearpage

1279: \subsection{Tests for the convergence plane}

1280: As described in \S\ref{Sigma_to_Kappa}, the effective convergence

1281: plane was produced by a two step process. First, we computed

1282: the effective convergence plane by weighting the surface mass

1283: density planes from the simulation with appropriate geometrical

1284: factors. Let us call it the map $\bmm M_1$. This map, therefore,

1285: includes contribution from the large scale structure only out to

1286: the redshift of the farthest TPM plane, $z =  4.05$. Next we added

1287: in the contribution from $z>4.05$, by generating a Gaussian random

1288: realization of the effective convergence from a theoretical power

1289: spectrum (the map $\bmm M_2$). Therefore the final convergence

1290: map is simply $(\bmm M_1 +\bmm M_2)$. It is interesting to compare

1291: the power spectrum of the map $\bmm M_1$ with that expected from

1292: theoretical considerations. Since CMB lensing is most sensitive

1293: to large scale modes, we should make sure that these modes were

1294: realized correctly in our simulated convergence plane. Incidentally,

1295: these scales are also linear to mildly nonlinear. Therefore,

1296: we should expect the power spectrum of the convergence map to

1297: be well replicated by the theoretical prediction at least in the

1298: quasi-linear range of  multipoles ($\ell \lesssim 2000$) where

1299: simple non-linear prescriptions suffice.

1300: 

1301: %\clearpage

1302: \begin{figure}

1303: \center

1304: \includegraphics[scale=0.37]{f10.eps}

1305: \caption{\label{fig:Eff_Kappa_to_TPMz} Power spectrum of the

1306: effective convergence map $\bmm M_1$ produced from the simulated lensing

1307: planes alone. The red line shows the power spectrum computed

1308: from the convergence map and the black solid line represents the

1309: theoretical power spectrum with non-linear corrections.  The power spectrum is corrected for the shot noise contribution (see text) which is displayed as the dotted line. The black dashed line corresponds to the linear theory power spectrum. All theory power spectra are mode-coupled with the apodizing window. }

1310: \end{figure}

1311: %\clearpage

1312: 

1313: In order to compute the theoretical power spectra for the maps $\bmm M_1$ and $(\bmm M_1+\bmm M_2)$, we used the Limber approximation to project 

1314: the matter power

1315: spectrum $P(k, \eta)$ computed from CAMB.

1316:  The Limber approximation simplifies the full curved-sky

1317: calculation, and is valid for $l\gtrsim 10$. Since for lower values

1318: of the multipole we have few realizations of the convergence modes,

1319: the power spectrum computed from the simulated map is noisy in this

1320: regime, rendering it practically useless for comparison with theory. 

1321: Therefore, an accurate computation of the theoretical convergence

1322: power spectrum for these lowest multipoles is unnecessary, and the

1323: Limber calculation suffices. Under the same approximation, the shot noise contribution to the convergence field can be computed as

1324: \beq

1325: \cl^{\mathrm{shot}} = \sum_j \Delta\eta_j \left( \frac32 \Om (1+z_j) \frac{(\eta_s-\eta_j)\eta_j}{\eta_s} \frac{H_0^2}{c^2} \right)^2 \frac{1}{\bar n_j} ,

1326: \eeq

1327: where $\bar n_j = N_j/(\eta_j^2 \Delta\eta_j\tildecaparea)$, $N_j$ being the total number of particles in the $j$-th shell. 

1328: 

1329: %\clearpage

1330: \begin{figure}

1331: \center

1332: \includegraphics[scale=0.37]{f11.eps}

1333: \caption{\label{fig:Eff_Kappa_to_CMB} Power spectrum of

1334: the effective convergence map $(\bmm M_1+ \bmm M_2)$ after adding in high redshift

1335: contribution. The red line shows the power spectrum computed

1336: from the convergence map and the black solid line represents the

1337: theoretical power spectrum with non-linear corrections. The power spectrum is corrected for the shot noise contribution (see text) which is displayed as the dotted line.  The black dashed line corresponds to the linear theory power spectrum. All theory power spectra are mode-coupled with the apodizing window.}

1338: \end{figure}

1339: %\clearpage

1340: 

1341: We compute both a linear and a non-linear version of the

1342: convergence power spectrum, where the latter includes non-linear

1343: corrections to the matter power spectrum from a halo model based

1344: fitting formula \citep{2003MNRAS.341.1311S}. We plot the power

1345: spectrum computed from the simulated convergence map $\bmm M_1$,

1346: and the corresponding theoretical power spectra, in 

1347: Fig.~\ref{fig:Eff_Kappa_to_TPMz}. As is evident from the figure, the simulated

1348: power spectrum is in accord with the linear theory power spectrum

1349: for $\ell\lesssim 300$, beyond which the effect non-linearities

1350: creep in. However, it is impressive that the non-linear corrections

1351: to the power spectrum are in good agreement with the simulation

1352: up to relatively high multipoles. The same quantities

1353: are plotted for the convergence map out to the redshift of the CMB

1354: in Fig.~\ref{fig:Eff_Kappa_to_CMB}. 

1355: We find in both cases that beyond multipoles of $\sim 6000$

1356: the simulation contains more non-linear power than predicted by the theory.

1357: 

1358: 

1359: \subsection{Tests for the lensed CMB map}\label{Tests_for_lensed_CMB}

1360: Since CMB lensing is essentially a remapping of points, the one-point

1361: statistics should remain unaffected by the lensing.

1362: We check for this by drawing up the one-point PDF's of the unlensed

1363: and lensed maps, and find them to be consistent to within $0.8\%$.

1364: Next, we compare the power spectrum of the simulated lensed map

1365: (cf. Figures~\ref{LensedCMBcls} \& \ref{LensedCMBclsZOOM}) with

1366: the theoretical predictions as computed with the CAMB code. For

1367: a quantitative comparison, we consider a range of  multipoles

1368: $(500 \le \ell\le 3500)$ in the acoustic regime. We do not

1369: consider the lower multipoles as they exhibit negligible lensing

1370: effect. We found that for a fixed input cosmology,

1371: the tail ($\ell\gtrsim 3500$) of the lensed CMB  power spectrum

1372: predicted by CAMB depends somewhat sensitively on input parameters,

1373: specifically the combination $k\eta_\mathrm{max}$, which controls

1374: the maximum value of the wavenumber for which the matter power

1375: spectrum in computed. However, the lensed power spectrum from

1376: CAMB is robust towards changes in the auxiliary input parameters

1377: for the range of multipoles, $\ell < 3500$. Also, the lensed CMB multipoles beyond this range couple to relatively small scale modes of the deflection field where our simulation has more power than expected from non-linear theory. In fact, beyond $\ell \simeq 4000$ the simulated power spectrum is found to deviate systematically from the theoretical spectrum.

1378: 

1379: As the simulated power spectrum, $\tilde\cl^{\mathrm{sim}}$,

1380: was computed using an apodized window as described in

1381: \S\ref{Angular_Power_Spectra}, the appropriate theoretical curve to

1382: compare this result with is the power spectrum from CAMB after it has

1383: been convolved with the coupling matrix defined by the same weighting

1384: scheme (cf. equation \ref{pseudocl} ).	We denote the latter quantity

1385: by $\tilde {C}_l^{\mathrm{theory}}$. 

1386: In order to facilitate the comparison

1387: we bin the raw spectrum  in $\ell$. In the multipole range considered

1388: $(500 \le \ell\le 4000)$, the quantity ${\cal C}_\ell = \ell^4 \cl$

1389: is flat (see Fig.~\ref{LensedCMBclsZOOM}) and therefore a better

1390: candidate for binning.  We denote the difference between the simulated and

1391: the theoretical version of this quantity by

1392: \beq

1393: \delta{\mathcal C}_l \equiv \tilde{\mathcal C}_l^{\mathrm{sim}} - 

1394:   \tilde {\mathcal C}_l^{\mathrm{theory}}   .

1395: \eeq   

1396: For each of the $N$ bins indexed by $b$, we compute the mean, $\delta{\mathcal C}_b$, and the sample variance, $s^2_b$, of the observations falling inside that bin. In order to account for that fact that cosmic variance errors will be higher in our case due to incomplete sky coverage, we define an effective variance as  $\sigma_b^2 = s_b^2/\fsky^{\mathrm{eff}}$.  

1397: 

1398: %\clearpage

1399: \begin{figure}

1400: \center

1401: \includegraphics[scale=0.37]{f12.eps}

1402: \caption{\label{fig:Error_Analysis} Difference between the

1403: simulated and the theoretical binned power spectrum for lensed CMB.}

1404: \end{figure}

1405: %\clearpage

1406: 

1407:  We quantify the goodness of fit between the simulation and the model

1408: by defining a $\chi^2$ statistic as

1409: \beq

1410: \chi^2 = \sum_{b=1}^{N} \frac{({\delta\mathcal C}_b)^{2}}{\sigma_b^2}.

1411: \eeq

1412:  We perform the $\chi^2$ analysis by uniformly binning the power

1413:  spectra in the range $500 \le \ell\le 4000$ into $52$ bins with a

1414:  bin width of $\Delta \ell = 60$.The binned values 

1415: along with the error bars are displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:Error_Analysis}.

1416:  We find a value $\chi^2 = 52.93$, suggesting an appreciable agreement with the theory. 

1417: \section{Conclusions}\label{Conclusions}

1418: In this paper, we have put forward an algorithm for end-to-end

1419: simulation of the gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave

1420: background, starting with an $N$-body simulation and fully taking

1421: into account the curvature of the sky. The method is applicable to

1422: maps of any geometry on the surface of the sphere, including the

1423: whole sky.  Our algorithm includes prescriptions for generating

1424: spherical convergence planes from an N-body light cone and

1425: subsequently ray-tracing through the planes to simulate lensing. The

1426: central feature of the algorithm is the use of a highly accurate

1427: interpolation method that enables sampling of both the deflection fields

1428: on intermediate lensing planes and the unlensed CMB map on an

1429: irregular grid. We have provided a detailed description of both a

1430: multiple plane ray tracing and an effective lensing version

1431: of the algorithm. The latter setting has been used to illustrate

1432: the algorithm, by generating an $\sim$1$\arcmin$ resolution lensed CMB

1433: map. We have compared the power spectra of the effective convergence

1434: map and the lensed CMB map with theoretical predictions, and have

1435: obtained good agreement. After this paper was completed, \citet{2007arXiv0711.1540F} described a similar method of producing convergence maps in spherical geometry, and \cite{2007arXiv0711.2655C} also described their techniques for simulating CMB lensing maps. The latter used broadly similar techniques to those described here, although they used a different method to obtain the deflection field. 

1436: 

1437: Applications of the algorithm can be manifold.  The associated

1438: large scale structure planes can be populated with tracers of mass

1439: and foreground sources, in order to simulate cross-correlation studies and

1440: to investigate the effects of contamination. This lensing portion of the algorithm

1441:  can be applied to generate lensed maps in large scale structure simulations 

1442: that produce spherical shells \citep{2007arXiv0711.1540F}. The multiple plane algorithm can

1443: be particularly useful, after trivial modifications, in simulating

1444: weak lensing of galaxies or the 21-cm background on a large sky.

1445: The lensed CMB maps can be used as inputs to telescope simulators

1446: for projects such as ACT and PLANCK, and will help in the analysis and

1447: interpretation of data. We intend to release all-sky high resolution 

1448: lensed CMB maps made using this algorithm in near future.

1449: 

1450: \acknowledgements

1451: SD would sincerely like to thank his advisor,

1452: David Spergel for suggesting the key ideas of the project and for his

1453: continuous guidance and encouragement throughout its development. SD

1454: is specially grateful to Chris Hirata for generously providing the

1455: NISHT code and for numerous useful discussions. We 

1456: thank Joanna Dunkley for careful reading of the manuscript

1457: and thoughtful suggestions. We would also like to thank the referee for

1458: his thoughtful suggestions. SD acknowledges the support from 

1459: the NASA Theory Program NNG04GK55G and the NSF grant AST-0707731.

1460: This research was facilitated by allocations of advanced

1461: computing resources from the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center

1462: and the National Center for Supercomputing Applications.

1463: In addition, computational facilities at

1464: Princeton supported by NSF grant AST-0216105 were used, as well as

1465: high performance computational facilities supported by

1466: Princeton University under the auspices of the

1467: Princeton Institute for Computational Science and Engineering

1468: (PICSciE) and the Office of Information Technology (OIT). Some of the

1469:  results in this paper have been derived using the HEALPix \citep{gorski-2005-622} package.

1470: 

1471: \begin{thebibliography}{32}

1472: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1473: 

1474: \bibitem[{Akima(1996)}]{232854}

1475: Akima, H. 1996, ACM Trans. Math. Softw., 22, 357

1476: 

1477: \bibitem[{{Bode} \& {Ostriker}(2003)}]{2003ApJS..145....1B}

1478: {Bode}, P. \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 2003, \apjs, 145, 1

1479: 

1480: \bibitem[{{Bode} {et~al.}(2007){Bode}, {Ostriker}, {Weller}, \&

1481:   {Shaw}}]{2007ApJ...663..139B}

1482: {Bode}, P., {Ostriker}, J.~P., {Weller}, J., \& {Shaw}, L. 2007, \apj, 663, 139

1483: 

1484: \bibitem[{{Bode} {et~al.}(2000){Bode}, {Ostriker}, \&

1485:   {Xu}}]{2000ApJS..128..561B}

1486: {Bode}, P., {Ostriker}, J.~P., \& {Xu}, G. 2000, \apjs, 128, 561

1487: 

1488: \bibitem[{{Carbone} {et~al.}(2007){Carbone}, {Springel}, {Baccigalupi},

1489:   {Bartelmann}, \& {Matarrese}}]{2007arXiv0711.2655C}

1490: {Carbone}, C., {Springel}, V., {Baccigalupi}, C., {Bartelmann}, M., \&

1491:   {Matarrese}, S. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 711

1492: 

1493: \bibitem[Challinor \& Chon(2002)]{2002PhRvD..66l7301C} Challinor, A., \& Chon, G.\ 2002, \prd, 66, 127301

1494: 

1495: \bibitem[{{Challinor} \& {Lewis}(2005)}]{2005PhRvD..71j3010C}

1496: {Challinor}, A. \& {Lewis}, A. 2005, \prd, 71, 103010

1497: 

1498: \bibitem[{Dahlen \& Simons(2007)}]{Dahlen:2007sv}

1499: Dahlen, F.~A. \& Simons, F.~J. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 705

1500: 

1501: \bibitem[{{Das} \& {Ostriker}(2006)}]{2006ApJ...645....1D}

1502: {Das}, S. \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 2006, \apj, 645, 1

1503: 

1504: \bibitem[Fosalba et al.(2007)]{2007arXiv0711.1540F} Fosalba, P., Gaztanaga, 

1505: E., Castander, F., \& Manera, M.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 711, 

1506: arXiv:0711.1540 

1507: 

1508: \bibitem[{Gorski {et~al.}(2005)Gorski, Hivon, Banday, Wandelt, Hansen,

1509:   Reinecke, \& Bartelmann}]{gorski-2005-622}

1510: Gorski, K.~M., Hivon, E., Banday, A.~J., Wandelt, B.~D., Hansen, F.~K.,

1511:   Reinecke, M., \& Bartelmann, M. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 622, 759

1512: \bibitem[Hirata et al.(2008)]{2008arXiv0801.0644H} Hirata, C.~M., Ho, S., 

1513: Padmanabhan, N., Seljak, U., 

1514: \& Bahcall, N.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 801, arXiv:0801.0644 

1515: \bibitem[{{Hirata} {et~al.}(2004){Hirata}, {Padmanabhan}, {Seljak}, {Schlegel},

1516:   \& {Brinkmann}}]{2004PhRvD..70j3501H}

1517: {Hirata}, C.~M., {Padmanabhan}, N., {Seljak}, U., {Schlegel}, D., \&

1518:   {Brinkmann}, J. 2004, \prd, 70, 103501

1519: 

1520: \bibitem[{{Hirata} \& {Seljak}(2003)}]{2003PhRvD..67d3001H}

1521: {Hirata}, C.~M. \& {Seljak}, U. 2003, \prd, 67, 043001

1522: 

1523: \bibitem[{{Hivon} {et~al.}(2002){Hivon}, {G{\'o}rski}, {Netterfield}, {Crill},

1524:   {Prunet}, \& {Hansen}}]{2002ApJ...567....2H}

1525: {Hivon}, E., {G{\'o}rski}, K.~M., {Netterfield}, C.~B., {Crill}, B.~P.,

1526:   {Prunet}, S., \& {Hansen}, F. 2002, \apj, 567, 2

1527: 

1528: \bibitem[{{Hu}(2000)}]{2000PhRvD..62d3007H}

1529: {Hu}, W. 2000, \prd, 62, 043007

1530: 

1531: \bibitem[{{Hu} {et~al.}(2007){Hu}, {Holz}, \& {Vale}}]{2007arXiv0708.4391H}

1532: {Hu}, W., {Holz}, D.~E., \& {Vale}, C. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 708

1533: 

1534: \bibitem[{{Hu} {et~al.}(2006){Hu}, {Huterer}, \& {Smith}}]{2006ApJ...650L..13H}

1535: {Hu}, W., {Huterer}, D., \& {Smith}, K.~M. 2006, \apjl, 650, L13

1536: 

1537: \bibitem[{{Hu} \& {Okamoto}(2002)}]{2002ApJ...574..566H}

1538: {Hu}, W. \& {Okamoto}, T. 2002, \apj, 574, 566

1539: 

1540: \bibitem[Jain et al.(2000)]{2000ApJ...530..547J} Jain, B., Seljak, U., 

1541: \& White, S.\ 2000, \apj, 530, 547 

1542: 

1543: \bibitem[Kayo et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...561...22K} Kayo, I., Taruya, A., \& 

1544: Suto, Y.\ 2001, \apj, 561, 22 

1545: 

1546: \bibitem[{{Komatsu} {et~al.}(2003){Komatsu}, {Kogut}, {Nolta}, {Bennett},

1547:   {Halpern}, {Hinshaw}, {Jarosik}, {Limon}, {Meyer}, {Page}, {Spergel},

1548:   {Tucker}, {Verde}, {Wollack}, \& {Wright}}]{2003ApJS..148..119K}

1549: {Komatsu}, E., {Kogut}, A., {Nolta}, M.~R., {Bennett}, C.~L., {Halpern}, M.,

1550:   {Hinshaw}, G., {Jarosik}, N., {Limon}, M., {Meyer}, S.~S., {Page}, L.,

1551:   {Spergel}, D.~N., {Tucker}, G.~S., {Verde}, L., {Wollack}, E., \& {Wright},

1552:   E.~L. 2003, \apjs, 148, 119

1553: 

1554: \bibitem[{{Lesgourgues} {et~al.}(2006){Lesgourgues}, {Perotto}, {Pastor}, \&

1555:   {Piat}}]{2006PhRvD..73d5021L}

1556: {Lesgourgues}, J., {Perotto}, L., {Pastor}, S., \& {Piat}, M. 2006, \prd, 73,

1557:   045021

1558: 

1559: \bibitem[{{Lewis}(2005)}]{2005PhRvD..71h3008L}

1560: {Lewis}, A. 2005, \prd, 71, 083008

1561: 

1562: \bibitem[{{Lewis} \& {Challinor}(2006)}]{2006PhR...429....1L}

1563: {Lewis}, A. \& {Challinor}, A. 2006, \physrep, 429, 1

1564: 

1565: \bibitem[{{Marian} \& {Bernstein}(2007)}]{2007arXiv0710.2538M}

1566: {Marian}, L. \& {Bernstein}, G.~M. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 710

1567: 

1568: \bibitem[{{Okamoto} \& {Hu}(2003)}]{2003PhRvD..67h3002O}

1569: {Okamoto}, T. \& {Hu}, W. 2003, \prd, 67, 083002

1570: 

1571: \bibitem[{{Peiris} \& {Spergel}(2000)}]{2000ApJ...540..605P}

1572: {Peiris}, H.~V. \& {Spergel}, D.~N. 2000, \apj, 540, 605

1573: 

1574: \bibitem[{{Sehgal} {et~al.}(2007){Sehgal}, {Trac}, {Huffenberger}, \&

1575:   {Bode}}]{2007ApJ...664..149S}

1576: {Sehgal}, N., {Trac}, H., {Huffenberger}, K., \& {Bode}, P. 2007, \apj, 664,

1577:   149

1578: 

1579: \bibitem[{{Seljak}(1996)}]{1996ApJ...463....1S}

1580: {Seljak}, U. 1996, \apj, 463, 1

1581: 

1582: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Smith}, {Hu}, \&

1583:   {Kaplinghat}}]{2006PhRvD..74l3002S}

1584: {Smith}, K.~M., {Hu}, W., \& {Kaplinghat}, M. 2006{\natexlab{a}}, \prd, 74,

1585:   123002

1586: 

1587: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2007)]{2007PhRvD..76d3510S} Smith, K.~M., Zahn, O.,

1588: \& Dor{\'e}, O.\ 2007, \prd, 76, 043510

1589: 

1590: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2003){Smith}, {Peacock}, {Jenkins}, {White},

1591:   {Frenk}, {Pearce}, {Thomas}, {Efstathiou}, \&

1592:   {Couchman}}]{2003MNRAS.341.1311S}

1593: {Smith}, R.~E., {Peacock}, J.~A., {Jenkins}, A., {White}, S.~D.~M., {Frenk},

1594:   C.~S., {Pearce}, F.~R., {Thomas}, P.~A., {Efstathiou}, G., \& {Couchman},

1595:   H.~M.~P. 2003, \mnras, 341, 1311

1596: 

1597: \bibitem[{{Smith} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Smith}, {Challinor}, \&

1598:   {Rocha}}]{2006PhRvD..73b3517S}

1599: {Smith}, S., {Challinor}, A., \& {Rocha}, G. 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \prd, 73,

1600:   023517

1601: 

1602: \bibitem[{{Spergel} {et~al.}(2007){Spergel}, {Bean}, {Dor{\'e}}, {Nolta},

1603:   {Bennett}, {Dunkley}, {Hinshaw}, {Jarosik}, {Komatsu}, {Page}, {Peiris},

1604:   {Verde}, {Halpern}, {Hill}, {Kogut}, {Limon}, {Meyer}, {Odegard}, {Tucker},

1605:   {Weiland}, {Wollack}, \& {Wright}}]{2007ApJS..170..377S}

1606: {Spergel}, D.~N., {Bean}, R., {Dor{\'e}}, O., {Nolta}, M.~R., {Bennett}, C.~L.,

1607:   {Dunkley}, J., {Hinshaw}, G., {Jarosik}, N., {Komatsu}, E., {Page}, L.,

1608:   {Peiris}, H.~V., {Verde}, L., {Halpern}, M., {Hill}, R.~S., {Kogut}, A.,

1609:   {Limon}, M., {Meyer}, S.~S., {Odegard}, N., {Tucker}, G.~S., {Weiland},

1610:   J.~L., {Wollack}, E., \& {Wright}, E.~L. 2007, \apjs, 170, 377

1611: 

1612: \bibitem[{{Spergel} {et~al.}(2003){Spergel}, {Verde}, {Peiris}, {Komatsu},

1613:   {Nolta}, {Bennett}, {Halpern}, {Hinshaw}, {Jarosik}, {Kogut}, {Limon},

1614:   {Meyer}, {Page}, {Tucker}, {Weiland}, {Wollack}, \&

1615:   {Wright}}]{2003ApJS..148..175S}

1616: {Spergel}, D.~N., {Verde}, L., {Peiris}, H.~V., {Komatsu}, E., {Nolta}, M.~R.,

1617:   {Bennett}, C.~L., {Halpern}, M., {Hinshaw}, G., {Jarosik}, N., {Kogut}, A.,

1618:   {Limon}, M., {Meyer}, S.~S., {Page}, L., {Tucker}, G.~S., {Weiland}, J.~L.,

1619:   {Wollack}, E., \& {Wright}, E.~L. 2003, \apjs, 148, 175

1620: 

1621: \bibitem[Taruya et al.(2002)]{2002ApJ...571..638T} Taruya, A., Takada, M., 

1622: Hamana, T., Kayo, I., \& Futamase, T.\ 2002, \apj, 571, 638 

1623: 

1624: \bibitem[Vale \& White(2003)]{2003ApJ...592..699V} Vale, C., \& White, M.\ 2003, \apj, 592, 699 

1625: 

1626: \bibitem[{{Zaldarriaga}(2000)}]{2000PhRvD..62f3510Z}

1627: {Zaldarriaga}, M. 2000, \prd, 62, 063510

1628: 

1629: \bibitem[{{Zaldarriaga} \& {Seljak}(1999)}]{1999PhRvD..59l3507Z}

1630: {Zaldarriaga}, M. \& {Seljak}, U. 1999, \prd, 59, 123507

1631: 

1632: \end{thebibliography}

1633: 

1634: \end{document}

1635: 

1636: 

1637: 

1638: % LocalWords:  Das CMB lensed unlensed

1639: