1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %\usepackage{epsfig,apjfonts}
4:
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6:
7: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
11: \newcommand{\bft}{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}
12:
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \pagestyle{plain}
16:
17: \title{Size of spectroscopic calibration samples for cosmic shear photometric
18: redshifts}
19: \author{Zhaoming Ma{\footnote{Email:mazh@sas.upenn.edu}} and Gary Bernstein}
20: %{\footnote{Email:garyb@physics.upenn.edu}}}
21: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
22: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104}
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: Weak gravitational lensing surveys using photometric redshifts can
26: have their cosmological constraints severely degraded by errors in the
27: photo-z scale.
28: We explore the cosmological degradation versus the size of the
29: spectroscopic survey required to calibrate
30: the photo-z probability distribution.
31: Previous work has assumed a simple Gaussian distribution of photo-z
32: errors; here, we describe a method for constraining an arbitrary
33: parametric photo-z error model. As an example we allow the photo-z
34: probability distribution to be the sum of $N_g$ Gaussians.
35: To limit cosmological degradation to a fixed level, photo-z
36: distributions comprised of multiple Gaussians
37: require up to a 5 times larger
38: calibration sample than one would estimate from assuming a
39: single-Gaussian model. This degradation saturates at $N_g\approx 4$
40: in the simple case where the fiducial distribution is independent of $N_g$.
41: Assuming a single Gaussian when the photo-z distribution has multiple
42: parameters underestimates cosmological parameter uncertainties by up to $35\%$.
43: The size of required calibration sample also depends on the shape of the
44: fiducial distribution, even when the rms photo-z error is held fixed.
45: The required calibration sample size varies up to a factor of 40 among
46: the fiducial models studied, but this is reduced to a factor of a few if the
47: photo-z error distributions are forced to be slowly varying with redshift.
48: Finally, we show that the size of the required calibration sample can
49: be substantially reduced by optimizing its redshift distribution.
50: We hope this study will help stimulate work on better understanding of
51: photo-z errors.
52: \end{abstract}
53: \keywords{cosmology -- gravitational lensing, large-scale structure of the
54: universe}
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57: \label{sec:introduction}
58:
59: Explaining the Hubble acceleration, {\it i.e.} the ``dark energy,''
60: is one of the main challenges to cosmologists. Weak gravitational
61: lensing (WL) has perhaps the most potential to constrain dark energy
62: parameters of any observational window, but is a newly developed
63: technique which could be badly degraded by systematic errors
64: (Albrecht et al 2005). A WL survey requires an estimate of the shape
65: and the redshift
66: of each source; dominant observational systematic errors are expected
67: to be errors in galaxy shape due to the uncorrected influence of the point
68: spread function (PSF) and errors in estimation of redshift
69: distributions if they are determined by photometric redshifts (photo-z's).
70: Interpretation of WL data could also be systematically incorrect due
71: to errors in the theory of the non-linear matter power spectrum or
72: intrinsic alignments of galaxies. In this paper we present a new and
73: more general analysis of the effect of photo-z calibration errors and
74: of the size of the spectroscopic survey required to reduce photo-z errors
75: to a desired level.
76:
77: Recent work has addressed many of these potential systematic errors in
78: WL data and theory:
79: from the computation of the nonlinear matter power spectrum
80: \citep{Vale_White, White_Vale, LosAlamos, Huterer_Takada, Hagan_Ma_Kravtsov,
81: Linder05, Ma06, Francis07};
82: from baryonic cooling and pressure forces on the distribution of large-scale
83: structures \citep{White_baryons, Zhan_Knox, Jing06, Rudd07, Zentner07};
84: approximations in inferring the shear from
85: the maps \citep{Dod_Zhang, White_reduced, Dod_Shapiro, Shapiro06};
86: and the presence of dust \citep{Vale_Hoekstra}.
87: The promise and problems of WL have stimulated work on how to improve
88: the PSF reconstruction \citep{Jarvis_Jain}, estimate shear from noisy images
89: \citep{Bernstein_Jarvis,Hirata_Seljak,Hoekstra04,Heymans06,
90: Nakajima06,STEP2_07},
91: and protect against errors in the theoretical power spectrum at small scales
92: \citep{nulling}.
93:
94: For visible-NIR WL galaxy surveys, the dominant systematic error is
95: likely to be inaccuracies in the photo-z calibration.
96: The effect of photo-z calibration on weak lensing is studied by
97: \cite{Ma05, Huterer05_wlsys, Jain06, Abdalla07}; and \cite{Bridle07}.
98: The distributions of photo-z errors assumed for these studies are,
99: however, much simpler than will exist in real surveys
100: \citep{Dahlen07,Oyaizu07,Wittman07,Stabenau07}.
101: \citet{Huterer05_wlsys} assumed that photo-z errors take the form of
102: simple shifts (a bias that varies with $z$), while \cite{Ma05} assume
103: the photo-z error
104: distribution is a Gaussian, with a bias {\em and} dispersion that are
105: functions of $z$. These studies
106: find that dark energy
107: constraints are very sensitive to the uncertainties of photo-z parameters.
108: A spectroscopic calibration sample of galaxies on the order of $10^5$ is
109: required to have less than $50\%$ degradation on dark energy constraints.
110: In this work we relax the Gaussian assumption, presenting a method to
111: evaluate the degradation of dark energy parameter accuracy versus the size
112: of the spectroscopic calibration survey, for the case of a photo-z error
113: distribution described by any parameterized function. We then apply
114: this to a model in which the core of the photo-z error distribution is
115: the sum of multiple Gaussians, ignoring for now the effect of
116: so-called catastrophic photo-z errors or outliers.
117:
118: The outline of the paper is as follows. In {\S}\ref{sec:methodology}
119: we introduce the formalism and parameterizations of cosmology, galaxy
120: redshift distributions and photometric redshift errors. The implementation
121: of the formalism is detailed in {\S}\ref{sec:implementation}.
122: We show the dependence of the size of the calibration sample on the
123: number of Gaussians and the shapes of the fiducial photo-z models in
124: {\S}\ref{sec:size}. We illustrate the effectiveness of optimizing the
125: calibration sample in {\S}\ref{sec:optimize}. We discuss our results and
126: conclude in {\S}\ref{sec:conclusion}.
127:
128: \section{Methodology}
129: \label{sec:methodology}
130:
131: Two major generalizations are made to the work done in \cite{Ma05}.
132: One is that we do {\em not} assume {\it a priori} knowledge of the
133: true underlying (unobserved) galaxy redshift distribution $n(z)$. Instead,
134: we treat it as an unknown function which must be constrained by the
135: photo-z distribution $n(z_{\rm ph})$ and other observables.
136: The other modification we make is to generalize the
137: photo-z probability distribution to generic parametric functions, in
138: our case multiple Gaussians.
139:
140: \subsection{Galaxy Redshift Distributions and Parameters}
141:
142: One of the observables that a weak lensing survey would provide is the
143: galaxy photo-z distribution $n(z_{\rm ph})$. The corresponding
144: galaxy true redshift distribution $n(z)$ is unknown. These two
145: galaxy redshift distributions are related by the photo-z probability
146: distribution $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$,
147: \begin{equation}
148: n(z_{\rm ph})=\int n(z)P(z_{\rm ph}|z)dz \,.
149: \label{eq:nzpnz}
150: \end{equation}
151: In practice, we model the true $n(z)$ as a linear interpolation
152: between values $n^i$ at a discrete set of redshifts $\{z^i\}$. The
153: $n^i$ become free parameters in a fit to the observables.
154:
155: Weak-lensing tomography \citep{Hu99, Huterer02} extracts temporal
156: information by dividing $n(z_{\rm ph})$ into a few
157: photo-z bins. The true distribution of galaxies $n_i(z)$ that fall in the
158: $i$th photo-z bin with $z_{\rm ph}^{(i)} < z_{\rm ph} < z_{\rm ph}^{(i+1)}$
159: becomes
160: \begin{equation}
161: n_i(z) = \int_{z_{\rm{ph}}^{(i)}}^{z_{\rm{ph}}^{(i+1)}}
162: dz_{\rm{ph}} \, n(z)\, P(z_{\rm{ph}} | z)\,.
163: \label{eq:ni}
164: \end{equation}
165: %Previously we
166: \cite{Ma05} had taken $P(z_{\rm{ph}} | z)$ to be a Gaussian,
167: described by two parameters (redshift bias and rms) at a given value of $z$.
168: Now we allow a generic dependence on a set of photo-z parameters $p_\mu$
169: indexed by $\mu$, $P(z_{\rm ph} | z; p_\mu)$. For a multiple Gaussian photo-z
170: model, $p_\mu$ are the biases and rms values of the component Gaussians.
171:
172: The total number of galaxies per
173: steradian
174: \be
175: n^A = \int_0^\infty dz n(z) \,,
176: \ee
177: fixes the normalization, and we analogously define
178: \be
179: n^A_{i} = \int_0^\infty dz n_{i}(z) \,
180: \ee
181: for the tomographic bins.
182:
183:
184: \subsection{Observables}
185:
186: We utilize information from both lensing and redshift surveys which
187: include galaxy photo-z distribution and the spectroscopic calibration
188: sample for the photo-z's.
189:
190: \subsubsection{Lensing Cross Spectra}
191: Following \cite{Ma05}, we choose the number-weighted convergence
192: power spectra $n^A_i n^A_j P_{ij}^{\kappa}(\ell)$ as lensing
193: observables{\footnote{Since we are using all the information from the galaxy number
194: distribution in this study, one could equally well use $P_{ij}$ as
195: lensing observables.}},
196: where $i$ and $j$ label tomographic bins. From \cite{Kaiser_92, Kaiser_98}
197: we have
198: %
199: \begin{equation}
200: n^A_i n^A_j P_{ij}^{\kappa}(\ell) =
201: \int_0^{\infty} dz \,{W_i(z)\,W_j(z)}{ H(z) \over D^2(z)}\,
202: P\! \left (k_{\ell}, z\right ),
203: \label{eq:pk_l}
204: \end{equation}
205: %
206: \noindent where $H(z)$ is the Hubble parameter, $D(z)$ is the angular
207: diameter distance in comoving coordinates, $P(k_{\ell}, z)$ is the
208: three-dimensional matter power spectrum, and $k_{\ell} = \ell /D(z)$ is the
209: wavenumber that projects onto the multipole $\ell$ at redshift $z$. The
210: weights $W$ are given by
211: %
212: \begin{eqnarray}
213: W_i(z) &=& {3\over 2}\,\Omega_m\, {H_0^2 D(z) \over H(z)}(1+z)\nonumber \\
214: &&\times
215: \int_z^\infty
216: dz^{\prime} {n_i(z^{\prime})}
217: {D_{LS}(z,z') \over D(z')} \,,
218: \label{eqn:weights}
219: \end{eqnarray}
220: where $D_{LS}(z,z')$ is the angular diameter distance between the two
221: redshifts. We compute a power spectrum from the transfer function of
222: \cite{Hu_transfer} with dark energy modifications from \cite{Hu01c}, and the
223: nonlinear fitting function of \cite{PD96}.
224:
225: \subsubsection{Photo-z Distribution}
226: Another set of observables from the redshift surveys is the galaxy photo-z
227: distribution, $n(z_{\rm ph}^i)$, collected into
228: % some $N_{\rm gpzd}$
229: bins. The width $\delta z_{\rm ph}$ of these bins would typically be much
230: finer than the tomography
231: bins and should be at least as fine as the nodes $z^i$ on
232: which the true redshift distribution is defined.
233: Binning equation\,\ref{eq:nzpnz}, we have
234: \begin{equation}
235: n(z_{\rm ph}^i) \delta z_{\rm ph} =\int n(z)P(z_{\rm ph}|z; p_\mu) \delta z_{\rm ph} dz \,.
236: \label{eq:nzpbin}
237: \end{equation}
238: So the observables are functions of the intrinsic distribution
239: $\{n^i\}$ and the photo-z parameters $p_\mu$.
240:
241: \subsubsection{Spectroscopic Redshifts}
242: The last piece of information we utilize is the spectroscopic calibration
243: sample. We presume that a representative sample of $N_{\rm spect}^i$
244: galaxies has been drawn from the sources in redshift bin $i$, with
245: spectroscopic redshifts
246: determined for {\em all} of them. Equivalently, we can demand that the
247: failure rate for obtaining redshifts in the spectroscopic survey must
248: be completely independent of redshift.
249: The likelihood of the $j$th
250: spectroscopic survey galaxy with photo-z value $z_{\rm ph}^j$ being
251: observed to have spectroscopic redshift $z^j$ is of course
252: % derived from
253: $P(z_{\rm ph}^j|z^j; p_\mu).$ Each spectroscopic redshift hence
254: adds a little more constraint to the photo-z parameters, as quantified
255: in \S\ref{sec:speczfish} below. We presume
256: all the spectroscopic $z$ values are independent, {\it i.e.} we ignore
257: source clustering. While this may be unrealistic in practice for
258: spectroscopic surveys over small areas of sky, it is
259: more likely---and adequate---that the redshift {\em errors} are
260: uncorrelated, so that we can constrain
261: $P(z_{\rm ph}-z | z)$ with $N^i_{\rm spect}$ independent samples.
262:
263: We have considered the spectroscopic sample to constrain $P(z_{\rm
264: ph}|z)$, which can combine with photo-z counts $n(z^i_{\rm ph})$ to
265: constrain the true redshift distribution $n(z)$.
266: One could potentially assume the spectroscopic sample to sample and
267: constrain $n(z)$ directly.
268: We avoid this for two reasons. First, claiming both uses for the
269: spectroscopic sample would be ``double counting'' its information.
270: Second, a direct constraint of $n(z)$
271: would depend heavily on the assumption that the
272: calibration sample is a fair representation of the full photo-z sample.
273: Source clustering in the spectroscopic sample would be more of an
274: issue. In addition, we investigate below the possibility of
275: targeting calibration samples at rates that vary with redshift.
276: In this situation, the calibration sample could deviate
277: from the true underlying galaxy redshift distribution by quite a bit.
278:
279: It remains crucial, in any case, that
280: the calibration sample is a fair representation of the
281: photo-z sample {\em within each redshift bin and for every galaxy type.}
282: For example, if we are taking spectra for $5\%$ of the photo-z sample
283: in some redshift bin, we must be sure to
284: draw $5\%$ of the blue galaxies and $5\%$ of the red galaxies for our
285: complete spectroscopic survey and succeed in obtaining redshifts for
286: all regardless of color.
287:
288: \subsection{Fisher Matrix}
289:
290: The Fisher matrix quantifies the information contained in the
291: observables. The total Fisher matrix is the sum of that from each of
292: three kinds of (uncorrelated) observables: the lensing shear, the
293: observed photo-z distribution, and the spectroscopic redshift distribution,
294: \be
295: F_{\mu \nu}^{total} = F_{\mu \nu}^{lens} + F_{\mu \nu}^{n(z_{\rm ph})}
296: +F_{\mu \nu}^{spect} \,,
297: \label{eqn:fisherTotal}
298: \ee
299: and the errors on the parameters are given by
300: $\Delta p_{\mu} = [{\bf F}^{total}]^{-1/2}_{\mu\mu}$.
301:
302: \subsubsection{Lensing Cross Spectra}
303: The ${\bf F}^{lens}$ quantifies the information contained in the
304: lensing observables
305: \be
306: O_a(\ell) = n^A_i n^A_j P_{ij}^{\kappa}(\ell)\,, \quad (a\equiv\{ij\},
307: \; i\ge j)
308: \ee
309: on a set of cosmological, photo-$z$ parameters $p_{\mu}$ and the underlying
310: galaxy redshift distribution parameters. Under the
311: approximation that the shear fields are Gaussian out to $\ell_{\rm max}$,
312: the Fisher matrix is given by
313: %
314: \be
315: F_{\mu \nu}^{lens} = \sum_{\ell=2}^{\ell_{\rm max}}(2\ell+1)f_{\rm sky}{\sum_{ab}
316: {\partial{O_{a}}
317: \over \partial{p_{\mu}} } [ {\bf C}^{-1} ]_{ab}
318: {\partial{O_{b}}
319: \over \partial{p_{\nu}} }}\,.
320: \label{eq:fisherLens}
321: \ee
322: %
323:
324: Given shot and Gaussian sample variance, the covariance matrix of the
325: observables becomes
326: \be
327: C_{ab} =
328: n^{A}_{i} n^{A}_{j} n^{A}_{k} n^{A}_{l} \left(
329: P^{\rm tot}_{ik} P^{\rm tot}_{jl} +
330: P^{\rm tot}_{il} P^{\rm tot}_{jk}\right)\,,
331: \label{eq:Cov}
332: \ee
333: where $a\equiv\{ij\}$ and $b\equiv\{kl\}$. The total power spectrum is given by
334: \begin{equation}
335: P^{\rm tot}_{ij}=P_{ij}^{\kappa} +
336: \delta_{ij} { \gamma_{\rm int}^2 \over {n}_i^A} \,,
337: \label{eq:C_obs}
338: \end{equation}
339: where $\gamma_{\rm int}$ is the rms shear error per galaxy per component
340: contributed by intrinsic ellipticity and measurement error.
341: For illustrative purposes we use $\ell_{\rm max}=3000$, $f_{\rm sky}$
342: corresponding to $20,000\,{\rm deg}^2$, $\bar n^{A}$ corresponding to
343: 30 galaxies arcmin$^{-2}$, and $\gamma_{\rm int}=0.22$. This is what
344: might be expected from an ambitious ground-based survey like the
345: Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST).\footnote{{See http://www.lssto.org}}
346:
347: For the cosmological parameters, we consider four parameters that
348: affect the matter power spectrum: the physical matter density
349: $\Omega_{m} h^{2} (= 0.14)$, physical baryon density
350: $\Omega_{b} h^{2} (= 0.024)$, tilt $n_{s} (= 1)$, and the amplitude
351: $\delta_{\zeta}(=5.07 \times 10^{-5}$ ; or $A= 0.933$ \citet{Speetal03}).
352: Values in parentheses are those of the fiducial model.
353: To these four cosmological parameters, we add three dark
354: energy parameters: the dark energy density $\Omega_{\rm DE}(=0.73)$,
355: its equation of state today $w_{0} = p_{\rm DE}/\rho_{\rm DE}|_{z=0} (=-1)$
356: and its derivative $w_{a} = -dw/da |_{z=0} (=0)$
357: assuming a linear evolution with the scale factor $w = w_{0} + (1-a)w_{a}$.
358: Unless otherwise stated, we shall take {\it Planck} priors on these
359: seven parameters (W. Hu, private communication).
360:
361: \subsubsection{Photo-z Distribution}
362: The ${\bf F}^{n(z_{\rm ph})}$ quantifies the information contained
363: in the galaxy photo-z distribution. We use the model of
364: equation~(\ref{eq:nzpbin}) to find the dependence of each observable
365: $n(z_{\rm ph}^i)$ on the true redshift and photo-z parameters. Each
366: bin is presumed to have Poisson uncertainties
367: \be
368: \sigma(n(z_{\rm ph}^i) \delta z_{\rm ph}) =
369: [n(z_{\rm ph}^i) \delta z_{\rm ph}]^{\onehalf}.
370: \ee
371: In practice, the number of photo-z's will be large, and ${\bf F}^{n(z_{\rm
372: ph})}$ acts like a linear constraint on the other parameters.
373:
374: \subsubsection{Spectroscopic Redshifts}
375: \label{sec:speczfish}
376: The ${\bf F}^{spect}$ quantifies the information contained in the
377: spectroscopic calibration sample on photo-z parameters $p_{\mu}$. The
378: simple likelihood analysis of Appendix~A shows that the Fisher matrix
379: from the spectroscopic survey is
380: \begin{equation}
381: F_{\mu \nu}^{spect} = \sum_i N_{\rm spect}^{i} \int {dz_{\rm ph} {1
382: \over {P^i(z_{\rm ph}|z)}}
383: {\partial P^i \over {\partial p_{\mu}}}
384: {\partial P^i \over {\partial p_{\nu}}} } \,,
385: \label{eqn:NspecPrior}
386: \end{equation}
387: where $N^i_{\rm spect}$ spectra have been obtained from redshift bin
388: $i$ (out of $N_{\rm pz}$) and $P^i$ describes the photo-z errors for
389: this bin.
390:
391: \section{Implementation}
392: \label{sec:implementation}
393: We now apply the above formalism to derive Fisher matrices for
394: specific cases of WL surveys and their associated spectroscopic
395: calibration surveys. In further sections we vary the parameters of
396: the photo-z errors and the spectroscopic survey and investigate the
397: impact on the accuracy of dark energy parameters derived from each survey.
398:
399: %\subsection{Redshift distributions}
400: Following \cite{Ma05}, the fiducial galaxy redshift distribution $n(z)$
401: is chosen to have the form
402: \begin{equation}
403: n(z) \varpropto {z}^{\alpha} \exp\left [-(z/z_0)^\beta\right ] \,.
404: \label{eq:nz}
405: \end{equation}
406: Unless otherwise stated we adopt $\alpha=2$ and $\beta=1$ and fix $z_0$ such
407: that the median redshift is $z_{\rm med} = 1$. The parametric model for
408: $n(z)$ is determined by linear interpolation between $N_{\rm pz}=31$ values
409: $n^i=n(z^i)$ at equally spaced redshifts between 0 and 3.
410:
411: In the Gaussian case as assumed in \cite{Ma05}, we have
412: \begin{equation}
413: P(z_{\rm ph}|z) = {1 \over {\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma_z}} \exp \left [
414: {-{{(z_{\rm ph} - z - z_{\rm {bias}})^2} \over {2 \sigma_z^2}}} \right ] \,.
415: \end{equation}
416: The bias $z_{\rm bias}$ and dispersion $\sigma_z$ are functions of
417: $z$.
418:
419: In reality, $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$ could be far more complex than a single Gaussian.
420: We explore this complexity by assuming $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$ as the sum of
421: Gaussians. Using $N_{g}$ Gaussians to describe $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$, we have
422: \begin{eqnarray}
423: P(z_{\rm ph}|z) &=&{} \sum_{j=1}^{N_{g}}
424: {C_j \over {\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma_{z;j}}}
425: \nonumber \\
426: &&{} \times \exp \left [
427: {-{{(z_{\rm ph} - z - z_{\rm {bias;j}})^2} \over {2 \sigma_{z;j}^2}}}
428: \right ] \,,
429: \label{eq:PnG}
430: \end{eqnarray}
431: where $C_j$ is the normalization of the $j^{th}$ Gaussian. Since we assume
432: $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$ is normalized to unity, we have $\sum_j C_j = 1$. We allow
433: the biases $z_{\rm {bias;j}}(z)$ and scatters $\sigma_{z;j}(z)$ to be arbitrary
434: functions of redshift. The redshift distribution of the tomographic bins
435: defined by equation\,\ref{eq:ni} can then be written as
436: \begin{eqnarray}
437: n_i(z) &=&{} {1 \over 2} n(z)\, \sum_j^{N_g} C_j[ {\rm erf}(x_{i+1;j}) -
438: {\rm erf}(x_{i;j}) ],
439: \end{eqnarray}
440: with
441: \begin{eqnarray}
442: x_{i,j} &\equiv & ({z_{\rm{ph}}^{(i)}-z+z_{\rm{bias;j}}})/
443: {\sqrt{2} \sigma_{{\rm z};j}},
444: \end{eqnarray}
445: where ${\rm erf}(x)$ is the error function.
446:
447: % Similar to the parameterization of $n(z)$ and $n(z_{\rm ph})$,
448: In practice, we represent the free functions $z_{\rm{bias;j}}(z)$ and
449: $\sigma_{z;j}(z)$ by linear interpolation between values at a discrete
450: set of $N_{\rm pz}$ redshifts equally
451: spaced from $z=0$ to 3. The photo-z parameter set $\{p_\mu\}$
452: is hence the $2N_gN_{\rm pz}$ values of the biases and dispersions of
453: the Gaussians at these nodes.
454:
455: With multiple Gaussians, we can describe a wide variety of photo-z
456: probability distributions $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$. Figure\,\ref{fig:pzPDFeg}
457: shows a few examples of $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$. A wide variety of
458: behaviors can be represented, including ``catastrophic'' outliers.
459: Although catastrophic photo-z errors could potentially have a big impact
460: on what we can get out of cosmic shear surveys \citep{Amara06},
461: we restrict ourselves to studying the core of
462: $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$ in this study.
463: \begin{figure*}[ht]
464: \centerline{\psfig{file=f1a.eps, width=1.6in}
465: \psfig{file=f1b.eps, width=1.6in}
466: \psfig{file=f1c.eps,width=1.6in}
467: \psfig{file=f1d.eps, width=1.6in} }
468: \caption {Examples of photo-z probability distribution $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$.
469: From left to right, they are two Gaussians with different biases,
470: two Gaussians with different $\sigma_z$ values, three Gaussians with
471: parameters randomly generated, and three Gaussians with one being
472: catastrophic. The thick solid lines are the total $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$,
473: and the thin dotted lines are the individual Gaussians that build
474: up $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$.
475: }
476: \label{fig:pzPDFeg}
477: \end{figure*}
478:
479:
480: \cite{Ma05} show that $N_{\rm pz}=31$ between $z=0$ and 3 gives
481: enough freedom to the photo-z parameters to destroy all tomographic information.
482: Since we are giving the photo-z even more freedom by allowing
483: $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$ to be
484: multiple Gaussians, $N_{\rm pz}=31$ should be large enough. Unless stated
485: otherwise, we use $N_{\rm pz}=31$. Thus, the total number of photo-z
486: parameters is $62 N_g$.
487:
488: The observables
489: $n(z_{\rm ph}^i)$, determined in bins of width
490: $\delta z_{\rm ph}$, need not have the same bin width as the spacing
491: of the $n(z^i)$ or the photo-z parameters. In fact, they should be
492: more finely spaced.
493: We choose the size of $\delta z_{\rm ph}$
494: such that further dividing it by two does not lead to anymore information
495: gains. We find that $\delta z_{\rm ph} = 0.0125$ is small enough for all
496: the photo-z models explored in this study.
497:
498:
499: \section{Size of the Spectroscopic Calibration Sample}
500: \label{sec:size}
501:
502: In this section we investigate the size of
503: the spectroscopic calibration sample required to limit photo-z
504: systematics to some desired level. In particular, we are interested in
505: the increased demands that might result from giving the photo-z
506: distribution freedom to depart from a single-Gaussian form.
507: We first demonstrate that, for a fixed
508: fiducial photo-z model, the required calibration size increases with
509: the number of degrees of freedom ($2N_g$) that we allow for deviations
510: from the fiducial model. This increase reaches an asymptotic limit
511: with $N_g$.
512:
513:
514: Second, we investigate how the required $N_{\rm spect}$ varies as
515: we allow the fiducial model to assume non-Gaussian shapes.
516: Equations\,\ref{eqn:NpriorGmu} and \ref{eqn:NpriorGsi} show that in
517: the case of a Gaussian distribution, the $N_{\rm spect}$ required to
518: constrain the photo-z parameters is proportional to
519: the square of the width of the distribution. In the following, we hold
520: the width (defined as the rms)
521: of the fiducial photo-z distributions to be $0.05(1+z)$. Holding this
522: fiducial width fixed means that any variations we
523: see are due only to variations in the {\em shape}
524: of the photo-z probability distribution.
525:
526: We use the error degradations in $w_{\rm a}$ (that is, errors in
527: $w_{\rm a}$ relative to the error with perfect knowledge of the photo-z
528: parameters) as the measure of dark energy degradations. The error
529: degradations in $w_{\rm p}$\footnote{We have $w_{\rm p} \equiv w(z=z_{\rm p})$,
530: where $z_{\rm p}$ is the redshift at which the errors of $w_0$
531: and $w_{\rm a}$ are decorrelated.}
532: are about $30$-$50\%$ lower and follow the same trend as that of $w_{\rm a}$.
533: Roughly speaking, the figure of merit adopted by the Dark Energy Task
534: Force \citep{DETF} will degrade as the square of the dark energy
535: degradation used here.
536:
537: In this section we assume that the $N_{\rm spect}$ total
538: spectroscopic galaxies are selected uniformly in redshift
539: between 0 and 3.
540:
541: \subsection{Dependence on the Number of Gaussians $N_g$}
542: The left panel of Figure\,\ref{fig:fid1234G} plots the
543: dark energy degradation versus the
544: size of the spectroscopic calibration sample, when the
545: photo-z error distribution has
546: $N_g = 1$, $2$, $3$, and $4$. The fiducial biases and dispersions are
547: the same for all component Gaussians. So the fiducial $P(z_{\rm
548: ph}|z)$ is identical in all cases, but with higher $N_g$, there is
549: more freedom for deviations from the fiducial. The second, third, and
550: fourth Gaussian components are each fixed to have one-fourth the total
551: normalization of the distribution.
552:
553: At fixed dark energy degradation, the
554: required size of the calibration sample ($N_{\rm spect}$) increases with
555: the number of Gaussians and reaches an asymptotic value when $N_g \approx 4$.
556: When dark energy degradation is 1.5, the $N_{\rm g} = 4$ photo-z model requires
557: $\approx5$ times the calibration sample of the $N_{\rm g} = 1$ model.
558:
559: Another view is that the dark-energy uncertainties will be
560: underestimated if one fits a single-Gaussian model to photo-z
561: distributions that actually require more freedom.
562: For example, assume we obtain
563: $4 \times 10^4$ spectra, as required to
564: keep dark energy degradation under 1.5 for a single-Gaussian photo-z
565: model. We find, however that the dark energy
566: degradation for $N_g=4$ rises above 2.0. So relaxing the Gaussian
567: assumption for photo-z's inflates the cosmological uncertainties by
568: $\approx35\%$.
569:
570: \begin{figure*}[ht]
571: \centerline{\psfig{file=f2a.eps, width=3.2in}
572: \psfig{file=f2b.eps, width=3.2in} }
573: \caption {Left:
574: The $N_{\rm spect}$ requirement for the same fiducial photo-z
575: distribution being
576: modeled using different numbers of Gaussians. These Gaussians
577: differ only by their normalizations, whose ratios are shown in
578: the legend (e.g., ``2G 3:1'' means a
579: two-Gaussian model with normalization ratio of 3 to 1.).
580: All Gaussian components have fiducial $z_{\rm bias} = 0$ and
581: $\sigma_z = 0.05(1+z)$, so all cases have the same fiducial
582: distribution while the fitted photo-z error distribution
583: gains more freedom.
584: The solid line is for the case of single
585: Gaussian ($N_g = 1$). % RMS of $P(z_{\rm ph}-z | z)$ is
586: Survey specs are LSST-like.
587: Right:
588: Thin lines are the same as those in the left panel but
589: with $\sigma_z = 0.03(1+z)$.
590: For comparison, the four-Gaussian model in the left panel
591: is plotted as the thick dotted line (magenta). The thick
592: solid line (red) is the single-Gaussian model with {\it SNAP}-like
593: survey specs ($f_{\rm sky} = 4000$ deg$^2$, $\bar n^{A}=100$
594: galaxies arcmin$^{-2}$, and $\gamma_{\rm int}=0.22$).
595: }
596: \label{fig:fid1234G}
597: \end{figure*}
598: %
599:
600: We also note from the left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:fid1234G} that
601: the dark energy
602: degradation has a characteristic dependence on $N_{\rm spect}$; for
603: $N_{\rm spect}\gtrsim10^3$, the dark energy parameter error scales roughly as
604: $N_{\rm spect}^{1/4}$. When the dark energy degradation reaches $\approx1.2$,
605: at $N_{\rm spect}=10^5$--$10^6$, the gains from additional spectra
606: become weaker and a degradation of unity is approached only very
607: slowly. As we vary $N_g$, we change the location of this ``knee'' in
608: the curve, but not the scaling for $N_{\rm spect}$ below the knee.
609: This scaling is not sensitive to either the fiducial photo-z models
610: or survey specs. For example, as shown in the right panel of
611: Figure~\ref{fig:fid1234G}, for a photo-z model with
612: $\sigma_z = 0.03 (1+z)$, the scaling is $N_{\rm spect}^{1/5}$;
613: for a SNAP-like survey{\footnote{See http://snap.lbl.gov}} with
614: $f_{\rm sky} = 4000$ deg$^2$, $\bar n^{A}=100$
615: galaxies arcmin$^{-2}$, and $\gamma_{\rm int}=0.22$,
616: the scaling is also $N_{\rm spect}^{1/5}$
617: %with a noticeable shift of the ``knee'' towards smaller $N_{\rm spect}$
618: as shown in the right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:fid1234G}.
619: %{\it Deserve a figure???} DONE
620:
621: %{\it what about $\sigma_z \neq 0.05 (1+z)$?}
622:
623: The desired spectroscopic survey size $N_{\rm spect}$ will in general
624: depend on the width and shape of the fiducial photo-z distribution,
625: not just $N_g$. We next investigate the dependence on the detailed
626: shape of the fiducial distribution.
627:
628: \subsection{Dependence on the Fiducial Photo-z Models}
629: \label{sec4.2}
630:
631: The left panel of Figure\,\ref{fig:Nspect2G} shows dark energy degradation
632: versus $N_{\rm spect}$ for several $N_g=2$ models,
633: all having fiducial rms width $0.05(1+z)$, but with different fiducial
634: biases and dispersions for the two components.
635: In detail, our study includes fiducial photo-z distributions in which:
636: the component Gaussians have
637: the same biases but different $\sigma_z$ values (``2G $\sigma_z$ diff'' model);
638: the same $\sigma_z$ values but different biases (``2G zbias diff'');
639: the same biases and $\sigma_z$ values but with
640: normalizations at a 3 to 1 ratio (``2G 3:1''); and 10 models in which
641: the fiducial $z_{\rm {bias;j}}$ and $\sigma_{z;j}$ are randomly
642: assigned while maintaining fixed rms photo-z error (``2G seed xxx'' models).
643:
644: The $N_{\rm spect}$
645: requirements span a rather large range. For example, at $50\%$ dark energy
646: degradation, most of the photo-z models' $N_{\rm spect}$ requirement is
647: within a factor of 4 of that of the single-Gaussian model. But some
648: of the models require $40$ times more $N_{\rm spect}$.
649: Three- and four-Gaussian photo-z models exhibit similar behaviors.
650:
651: \begin{figure*}[ht]
652: \centerline{\psfig{file=f3a.eps, width=2.1in}
653: \psfig{file=f3b.eps, width=2.1in}
654: \psfig{file=f3c.eps, width=2.1in}}
655: \caption {The $N_{\rm spect}$ requirement for different fiducial photo-z
656: models with $N_g = 2$, including some with randomly generated
657: fiducial photo-z error distributions.
658: Details of the photo-z models are in \S\,\ref{sec4.2}.
659: Left: Information from the galaxy photo-z distribution
660: $n(z_{\rm ph})$ and the spectroscopic calibration
661: sample are used to constrain the underlying galaxy
662: redshift distribution $n(z)$ and photo-z parameters.
663: Middle: Same as the left panel, except that information
664: from $n(z_{\rm ph})$ is not utilized and $n(z)$ is
665: assumed to be known {\it a priori}.
666: Right: Within each of the three $\delta z = 1$ intervals,
667: the randomly generated fiducial $z_{\rm bias}$
668: and $\sigma_z$ values increase linearly with $1+z$.
669: The proportionalities are generated randomly.
670: In all three panels, the thick solid red line is for the case of
671: a single Gaussian ($N_g = 1$).
672: }
673: \label{fig:Nspect2G}
674: \end{figure*}
675:
676: To understand the wide range of $N_{\rm spect}$ requirements for
677: different photo-z models, we perform the following test.
678: We fix the underlying galaxy redshift ${n(z)}$ and do not use any
679: information from ${n(z_{\rm ph})}$.
680: The resulting $N_{\rm spect}$ requirements for the double-Gaussian
681: photo-z models are shown in the middle panel of Figure\,\ref{fig:Nspect2G}.
682: At fixed dark energy degradation, the range of $N_{\rm spect}$
683: requirements is greatly reduced. For example, at $50\%$ dark
684: energy degradation, the $N_{\rm spect}$ requirement is within a factor of 2
685: of that of the single-Gaussian model. We find
686: similar reduction of the range of $N_{\rm spect}$ requirements in the
687: case of three- and four-Gaussian models.
688: The test shows that the reason for the
689: wide range of $N_{\rm spect}$ requirements for different photo-z
690: models is that $n(z_{\rm ph})$ constrains the underlying galaxy
691: redshift distribution and the photo-z parameters much better in
692: some of the photo-z models than others. It is the redshift knowledge,
693: rather than weak-lensing information itself,
694: that is sensitive to the details of the
695: photo-z probability distribution.
696:
697: One possible cause of the poor sensitivity in some photo-z
698: models is the rapid variation of photo-z parameters in redshift.
699: The right panel of Figure\,\ref{fig:Nspect2G} shows the result of
700: reducing the degree of rapid variation of the photo-z parameters.
701: The range of $N_{\rm spect}$ is reduced to within a factor of
702: 4 of that of the single-Gaussian model as shown in right panel
703: of Figure\,\ref{fig:Nspect2G}.
704: In detail, we demand that the fiducial photo-z parameter
705: $z_{\rm bias}$ and $\sigma_z$ values to be proportional to $1+z$
706: within each of the three redshift intervals with width $\delta z = 1$.
707: The proportionalities are generated randomly.
708: These photo-z models are much smoother than those randomly
709: generated in the left panel of Figure\,\ref{fig:Nspect2G}. This test
710: shows that $n(z_{\rm ph})$ is less effective in constraining the underlying
711: galaxy redshift distribution and photo-z parameters when the photo-z
712: model is rapidly varying.
713: In reality, photo-z parameters would most likely show smooth variations in
714: redshift. The required calibration sample is expected to be within a factor
715: of a few times that of the single-Gaussian fiducial model.
716:
717: We point out that multi-Gaussian cases
718: may require fewer spectroscopic calibration galaxies than the single-Gaussian
719: case. As an example, examine the photo-z model with double Gaussians
720: whose $\sigma_{\rm z}$ values are different. Its $N_{\rm spect}$ requirement
721: is shown in Figure\,\ref{fig:Nspect2G} (left) using the dotted blue line.
722: Since we keep the width
723: of $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$ fixed, one of the Gaussians in the double-Gaussian
724: photo-z model is narrower than the width of $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$ and
725: the other Gaussian is broader.
726: The narrower Gaussian tends to reduce the $N_{\rm spect}$ requirement,
727: while the broader one tends to do exactly the opposite. The outcome of
728: these competing effects could
729: be either a smaller or larger requirement of the calibration sample.
730: For this particular photo-z model, the required $N_{\rm spect}$ crosses
731: that of the single-Gaussian model (shown as the thick solid red curve in
732: Fig\,\ref{fig:Nspect2G} left).
733:
734: We note that the generic behavior $\sigma_{w_a}\propto N_{\rm
735: spect}^{0.2-0.25}$ continues to hold for all the fiducial
736: distributions, until the dark energy degradation drops to 1.2--1.3. This
737: inflection typically occurs with a few times $10^5$ spectra, for the
738: LSST survey parameters assumed here.
739:
740: \section{Optimizing the Spectroscopic Calibration Sample}
741: \label{sec:optimize}
742:
743: So far we have been assuming that the calibration sample is
744: uniformly distributed in
745: redshift. Weak lensing may require more precise photo-z calibration at some
746: redshifts than others. It could be beneficial if we distribute the
747: calibration sample according to lensing sensitivity.
748: Our goal is to find the $N_{\rm spect}^i$ that leads to the best dark energy
749: constraints for a fixed spectroscopic observing time $T_{\rm obs}$. This
750: could be modeled as
751: \begin{eqnarray}
752: (\mathrm{Uncertainties} &&{} \mathrm{in\,\,dark\,\,energy\,\,parameters}) =
753: \nonumber \\
754: &&{} {\it function}(N_{\rm spect}^i \,,
755: i = 1,2,...) \,,
756: \label{eqn:modelEqn}
757: \end{eqnarray}
758: \begin{equation}
759: \sum_{i=1} N_{\rm spect}^i cost(z^i) = T_{\rm obs} \,,
760: \label{eqn:conEqn}
761: \end{equation}
762: where $cost(z^i)$ is the time it takes to obtain the spectrum of a galaxy at
763: redshift $z^i$. This is a constrained nonlinear optimization problem.
764: To calculate the function in equation\,\ref{eqn:modelEqn}, we first
765: calculate the Fisher matrices ${\rm F}^{\rm lens}$ and
766: ${\rm F}^{n(z_{\rm ph})}$
767: for the presumed survey. Then for each trial set of $N^i_{\rm
768: spect}$, we calculate $F^{\rm spect}$ using
769: equation\,\ref{eqn:NspecPrior}, sum the Fisher matrices, and forecast
770: the dark energy uncertainties.
771: As to the constrain equation (\ref{eqn:conEqn}), we
772: need to know the cost function. For illustrative purposes, we assume
773: $cost(z^i)$ is a constant.
774: \begin{figure}[ht]
775: \centerline{\psfig{file=f4.eps, width=3.2in}}
776: \caption {Histogram: Optimal $N_{\rm spect}$ distribution in
777: redshift for single-Gaussian model.
778: Dark energy degradation is $56\%$ if this sample is distributed
779: uniformly in redshift. The $N_{\rm spect}$ distribution in this
780: figure lowers dark energy degradation to $38\%$, which would
781: require $69,000$ galaxy spectra to calibrate if the distribution
782: is flat in redshift.
783: Blue dashed line: Smooth fit to the histogram. The dark
784: energy degradation is $44\%$ if this calibration sample is used.
785: For both the histogram and the smooth fit, the calibration sample
786: has 37,500 galaxies.
787: }
788: \label{fig:optimalNspect}
789: \end{figure}
790:
791: As an example we choose a calibration sample of 37,500 galaxies and
792: assume a single-Gaussian photo-z model. If this calibration sample is
793: uniformly distributed in redshift, dark energy degradation is $56\%$.
794: %{\bf ???Zhaoming, fill in:}
795: If instead we use a downhill simplex method to find the
796: spectroscopic redshift sampling distribution that minimizes the dark
797: energy uncertainties for a fixed total number of redshifts, we obtain
798: the distribution shown as the
799: histogram in Figure\,\ref{fig:optimalNspect}. The optimized redshift
800: sampling lowers the dark energy
801: degradation to $38\%$. That is a $18\%$ gain in dark energy precision
802: at fixed investment of spectroscopy time.
803: From a different prospective, to reach $38\%$
804: dark energy degradation with a uniformly distributed calibration sample,
805: $69,000$ galaxy spectra are required. So optimization saves $46\%$
806: of the spectroscopic observing time for fixed cosmological degradation.
807: Multi-Gaussian photo-z models exhibit very similar behaviors.
808:
809: We do not know exactly why the optimized calibration sample
810: distribution is not very smooth. It would be rather difficult to plan
811: the observation to match this distribution. Fortunately, a smooth
812: distribution like the one shown using the blue dashed line in
813: Figure\,\ref{fig:optimalNspect} produces $44\%$ dark energy degradation,
814: which is a moderate improvement over the uniform case.
815:
816: \section{Conclusion and Discussion}
817: \label{sec:conclusion}
818:
819: We explore the dependence of cosmological parameter uncertainties in
820: WL power-spectrum tomography on the size of the spectroscopic sample
821: for the calibration of photometric redshifts. We present a formula that is
822: valid for arbitrary parameterizations of the photo-z error distribution and
823: then apply this to a multi-Gaussian model to see whether previous
824: works' assumptions of simple Gaussian photo-z errors were yielding
825: accurate results.
826:
827: Indeed, we find that the required $N_{\rm spect}$ under the simple
828: Gaussian model is increased $\approx 4$ times when we allow more
829: freedom in the shape of the core of the photo-z distribution.
830: Fortunately, there appears to be an asymptotic upper limit as we add
831: more photo-z degrees of freedom.
832:
833: We also find a generic behavior $d\log\sigma / d\log N_{\rm
834: spect}=$ 0.20--0.25, where $\sigma$ is the uncertainty in a dark energy
835: parameter, in the regime where $\sigma$ is degraded 1.2--5 times
836: compared to the case of perfect knowledge of the photo-z
837: distribution. Hence, the fourfold increase in required $N_{\rm spect}$
838: from relaxing the Gaussian assumption is equivalent to a
839: $\approx 1.3$ times degradation in $\sigma$ at fixed $N_{\rm spect}$.
840:
841: The exact value of dark energy degradation versus $N_{\rm spect}$ depends
842: significantly on the shape of the fiducial distribution, even when
843: the total rms photo-z error is held fixed. For the case of the LSST
844: survey with rms photo-z error $0.05(1+z)$, we find that the ``knee''
845: at a dark energy degradation of 1.2--1.3 occurs in the range $N_{\rm
846: spect}\approx10^5$--$10^6$.
847:
848: For photo-z models described by nondegenerate Gaussians,
849: the size of the calibration sample varies by as much as 40 times among
850: the 14 models studied. Most of the variation is caused by the different
851: ability of the galaxy photo-z distribution $n(z_{\rm ph})$ to constrain
852: the underlying galaxy redshift distribution and the photo-z probability
853: distribution. These photo-z models whose parameters vary rapidly in
854: redshift are the ones that are least constrained. In reality, photo-z
855: parameters are expected to be smoothly varying in redshift.
856: The $N_{\rm spect}$ requirement would be only a factor
857: of a few from that of the single-Gaussian fiducial distribution.
858:
859: Finally, we show that the size of the calibration sample can be effectively
860: reduced by optimization. In a simple example, an optimized calibration sample
861: of 37,500 redshifts was able to reach the same dark energy degradation
862: as a sample of 69,000 galaxies uniformly distributed in redshift.
863:
864: We restrict this study to the effect of the core of the photo-z distributions.
865: Catastrophic photo-z errors could potentially be very damaging. The methodology
866: provided in this study is applicable to study the effect of catastrophic
867: photo-z errors. We leave this to future work.
868:
869: The methodology we use assumes that the spectroscopic survey is a
870: {\em fair} sample of the photo-z error distribution and is the {\em
871: only} information available on the photo-z error distribution.
872: Since we have used a Fisher matrix technique, no photo-z estimation
873: method, regardless of technique (neural net, template fitting, etc.)
874: can surpass our forecasts under these conditions.
875:
876: The calibration's success depends crucially on the spectroscopic
877: redshifts being drawn without bias from the redshift distribution of
878: the photometric sample it represents.
879: The survey strategy must be carefully formulated to make sure that
880: this occurs. Differential incompleteness between, say, red and blue
881: galaxies or redshift ``deserts'', must be avoided. This has not been
882: achieved by any large redshift survey beyond $z\approx 0.5$ to date.
883:
884: It may be possible to constrain $P(z_{\rm ph}|z)$ by other means in
885: the absence of a fair spectroscopic sample of the size we specify.
886: One could invoke astrophysical assumptions, namely, that the spectra of
887: faint galaxies are identical to those of brighter galaxies, in an
888: attempt to bootstrap a fair bright sample into a calibration for
889: fainter galaxies. Another suggestion
890: (\cite{Schneider06}; J. Newman, private communication) is
891: that the photometric sample be cross-correlated with an incomplete
892: spectroscopic sample to infer the redshift distribution of the
893: former. It remains to be seen, however, whether these techniques can
894: attain the accuracy needed to supplant a direct fair sample of $>10^5$
895: spectra. This would require some {\it a priori} bounds on the
896: evolution of galaxy spectra and the clustering correlation
897: coefficients of different classes of galaxies. We look forward to
898: future progress in these techniques, keeping in mind that the demands
899: for precision cosmology from WL tomography are much more severe than
900: the demands that galaxy evolution studies typically place on
901: photometric redshift systems.
902:
903:
904: \acknowledgements {\it Acknowledgments}: We thank Wayne Hu, Dragon Huterer,
905: and Bhuvnesh Jain for useful discussions. Z.M. and G.B. are supported by
906: Department of Energy grant DOE-DE-FG02-95ER40893.
907: G.M.B. acknowledges additional support from NASA grant BEFS 04-0014-0018
908: and National Science Foundation grant AST 06-07667.
909:
910:
911: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A-\arabic{equation}}
912: \setcounter{equation}{0}
913: %\section*{Appendix: Derivation of equation\,\ref{eqn:NspecPrior}}
914: \section*{Appendix: Derivation of Equation\,14}
915: \label{sec:AppendixA}
916:
917: If one draws $N$ events from a sample with probability distribution function
918: $P(x;{\bft})$, where the components of ${\bft}$ are the parameters
919: specifying the distribution and $x$ is the variable whose probability
920: distribution is under consideration, what are the constraints on the
921: parameters ${\bft}$?
922:
923: Let us first divide $x$ into small bins and label the width of the bins as
924: $\Delta x_i$. The number of events that fall in the $i$th bin is Poisson
925: distributed with mean $\bar{N_i} = N P(x_i;{\bft}) \Delta x_i $.
926: The likelihood function can be expressed as
927: \begin{equation}
928: L \propto \prod_i {\exp(-\bar{N_i}) \bar{N_i}^{N_i} \over {N_i !}} \,,
929: \end{equation}
930: and the natural logarithm of $L$ is,
931: \begin{equation}
932: {\mathcal L} \equiv - ln L = \sum_i \bar{N_i} - N_i ln \bar{N_i} + ln N_i !
933: + const \,\,.
934: \end{equation}
935: The derivatives of ${\mathcal L}$ with respect to the model parameters
936: ${\bft}$ are
937: \begin{equation}
938: {\partial {\mathcal L} \over {\partial \theta_{\mu}}} = \sum_i
939: \left ( 1- {N_i \over {\bar{N_i}}} \right )
940: {\partial {\bar{N_i}} \over {\partial \theta_{\mu}}} \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, and,
941: \end{equation}
942: \begin{eqnarray}
943: {\partial^2 {\mathcal L} \over {\partial \theta_{\mu} \partial \theta_{\nu}}}
944: &=&{} \sum_i \left [ {N_i \over {\bar{N_i}^2}}
945: {\partial {\bar{N_i}} \over {\partial \theta_{\mu}}}
946: {\partial {\bar{N_i}} \over {\partial \theta_{\nu}}} \right.
947: \nonumber \\
948: &&{}
949: \left.
950: + \left ( 1- {N_i \over {\bar{N_i}}} \right )
951: {\partial^2 {\bar{N_i}} \over {\partial \theta_{\mu}
952: \partial \theta_{\nu}}} \right ] \,.
953: \end{eqnarray}
954: The Fisher matrix is,
955: \begin{eqnarray}
956: F_{\mu \nu} &\equiv&{} \left <
957: {\partial^2 {\mathcal L} \over {\partial \theta_{\mu} \partial \theta_{\nu}}}
958: \right > = \sum_i {1 \over {\bar{N_i}}}
959: {\partial {\bar{N_i}} \over {\partial \theta_{\mu}}}
960: {\partial {\bar{N_i}} \over {\partial \theta_{\nu}}}
961: \nonumber \\
962: &=& \sum_i {N \Delta x_i \over {P(x_i;{{\bft}})}}
963: {\partial {P(x_i;{{\bft}})} \over {\partial \theta_{\mu}}}
964: {\partial {P(x_i;{{\bft}})} \over {\partial \theta_{\nu}}}
965: \nonumber \\
966: &=& N \int dx {1 \over {P(x;{{\bft}})}}
967: {\partial {P(x;{{\bft}})} \over {\partial \theta_{\mu}}}
968: {\partial {P(x;{{\bft}})} \over {\partial \theta_{\nu}}} \,.
969: \label{eqn:Nprior}
970: \end{eqnarray}
971:
972: In the special case where $P(x;{{\bft}})$ is a Gaussian with mean
973: $\mu$ and spread $\sigma$,
974: \begin{equation}
975: P(x;\mu,\sigma) = { 1 \over {\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma} } \exp \left [
976: - {(x-\mu)^2 \over {2 \sigma^2}}
977: \right ] \,,
978: \end{equation}
979: we have
980: \begin{equation}
981: {\partial P \over {\partial \mu}} = {x-\mu \over {\sigma^2}} P\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,and,
982: \end{equation}
983: \begin{equation}
984: {\partial P \over {\partial \sigma}} = -{P \over {\sigma}} +
985: {(x-\mu)^2 \over {\sigma^3}} P \,.
986: \end{equation}
987: Plugging these results into equation\,\ref{eqn:Nprior} gives us
988: \begin{equation}
989: F_{\mu \mu} = N \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx {(x-\mu)^2 \over {\sigma^4}} P
990: = {N \over {\sigma^2}} \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, and,
991: \label{eqn:NpriorGmu}
992: \end{equation}
993: \begin{equation}
994: F_{\sigma \sigma} = N \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} dx P \left [
995: {(x-\mu)^2 \over {\sigma^3}} - {1 \over {\sigma}} \right ]^2
996: = {2 N \over {\sigma^2}} \,.
997: \label{eqn:NpriorGsi}
998: \end{equation}
999: Note that $F_{\mu \sigma} = 0$ since the integral only involves odd powers of
1000: $x-\mu$.
1001:
1002: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1003:
1004: \bibitem[Abdalla et al.(2007)]{Abdalla07}
1005: Abdalla, F.B., Amara, A., Capak, P., Cypriano, E.S., Lahav, O., \&
1006: Rhodes, J., 2007, astro-ph/0705.1437
1007:
1008: \bibitem[Albrecht et al.(2006)]{DETF}
1009: Albrecht, A., Bernstein G., \& Cahn, R. et al., 2006, astro-ph/0609591
1010:
1011: \bibitem[Amara, \& Refregier(2007)]{Amara06}
1012: Amara, A., \& Refregier, A., 2007, MNRAS, 381, 1018 (astro-ph/0610127)
1013:
1014: \bibitem[Bernstein \& Jarvis(2002)]{Bernstein_Jarvis}
1015: Bernstein, G. \& Jarvis, B. 2002, AJ, 583, 123
1016:
1017: \bibitem[Bridle \& King(2007)]{Bridle07}
1018: Bridle, S., \& King, L., 2007, astro-ph/0705.0166
1019:
1020: \bibitem[Dahlen et al.(2007)]{Dahlen07}
1021: Dahlen, T., Mobasher, B., \& Jouvel, S. et al., 2007,
1022: astro-ph/0710.5532
1023:
1024: \bibitem[Dodelson et al.(2006)]{Dod_Shapiro}
1025: Dodelson, S., Shapiro, C., \& White, M.\ 2006, Phys. Rev. D73, 023009
1026: (astro-ph/0508296)
1027:
1028: \bibitem[Dodelson \& Zhang(2005)]{Dod_Zhang}
1029: Dodelson, S. \& Zhang, P.\ 2005, Phys. Rev. D72, 083001
1030: (astro-ph/0501063)
1031:
1032: \bibitem[Eisenstein \& Hu(1999)]{Hu_transfer}
1033: Eisenstein, D.J. \& Hu, W. 1999, ApJ, 511, 5
1034:
1035: \bibitem[Francis et al.(2007)]{Francis07}
1036: Francis, M., Lewis, G., \& Linder E., 2007, MNRAS, 380, 1079 (astro-ph/0704.0312)
1037:
1038: \bibitem[Hagan, Ma \& Kravtsov(2005)]{Hagan_Ma_Kravtsov}
1039: Hagan, B., Ma C-P. \& Kravtsov A. 2005, \apj, 633, 537-541
1040: (astro-ph/0504557)
1041:
1042: \bibitem[Heymans et al.(2006)]{Heymans06}
1043: Heymans, C., Waerbeke, L.V., Bacon, D., Berge, J. et al, 2006,
1044: MNRAS, 368, 1323-1339 (astro-ph/0506112)
1045:
1046: \bibitem[Heitmann et al.(2005)]{LosAlamos}
1047: Heitmann, K., Ricker, P.~M., Warren, M.~S., Habib, S., 2005,
1048: ApJS, 160, 28 (astro-ph/0411795)
1049:
1050: \bibitem[Hirata \& Seljak(2003)]{Hirata_Seljak}
1051: Hirata, C. \& Seljak, U. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 459
1052:
1053: \bibitem[Hoekstra(2004)]{Hoekstra04}
1054: Hoekstra, H. 2004, MNRAS, 347, 1337
1055:
1056: \bibitem[Hu(1999)]{Hu99}
1057: Hu, W., 1999, ApJ, 522, L21
1058:
1059: \bibitem[Hu(2002)]{Hu01c}
1060: Hu, W.\ 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 023003
1061:
1062: \bibitem[Huterer(2002)]{Huterer02}
1063: Huterer, D., 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 063001
1064:
1065: \bibitem[Huterer \& Takada(2005)]{Huterer_Takada}
1066: Huterer, D. \& Takada, M. 2005, Astropart. Phys., 23, 369
1067:
1068: \bibitem[Huterer et al.(2006)]{Huterer05_wlsys}
1069: Huterer, D., Takada, M., Bernstein, G \& Jain, B. 2006,
1070: MNRAS, 366, 101-114 (astro-ph/0506030)
1071:
1072: \bibitem[Huterer \& White(2005)]{nulling}
1073: Huterer, D., \& White, M. 2005, Phys.Rev. D72, 043002
1074: (astro-ph/0501451)
1075:
1076: \bibitem[Jain et al.(2007)]{Jain06}
1077: Jain, B., Connolly, A., \& Takada, M., 2007, J. Cosmol. Astropart.
1078: Phys., 03, 013 (astro-ph/0609338)
1079:
1080: \bibitem[Jarvis \& Jain(2004)]{Jarvis_Jain}
1081: Jarvis, M. \& Jain, B. 2004, astro-ph/0412234
1082:
1083: \bibitem[Jing et al.(2006)]{Jing06}
1084: Jing, Y.P., Zhang, P., Lin, W.P. et al., 2006, \apj, 640, L119
1085: (astro-ph/0512426)
1086:
1087: \bibitem[Kaiser(1992)]{Kaiser_92}
1088: Kaiser, N.\ 1992, \apj, 388, 272
1089:
1090: \bibitem[Kaiser(1998)]{Kaiser_98}
1091: Kaiser, N.\ 1998, \apj, 498, 26
1092:
1093: \bibitem[Linder \& White(2005)]{Linder05}
1094: Linder, E., \& White, M., 2005, Phys. Rev. D72, 061304
1095: (astro-ph/0508401)
1096:
1097: \bibitem[Ma et al.(2006)]{Ma05}
1098: Ma, Z., Hu, W. \& Huterer, D., 2006, \apj, 636, 21 (astro-ph/0506614)
1099:
1100: \bibitem[Ma(2006)]{Ma06}
1101: Ma, Z., 2006, \apj, 665, 887-898 (astro-ph/0610213)
1102:
1103: \bibitem[Massey et al.(2007)]{STEP2_07}
1104: Massey, R., Heymans, C., Berge, J., Bernstein, G. et al., 2007,
1105: MNRAS, 376, 13-38 (astro-ph/0608643)
1106:
1107: \bibitem[Nakajima \& Bernstein(2007)]{Nakajima06}
1108: Nakajima, R., \& Bernstein, G., 2007, AJ, 133, 1763 (astro-ph/0607062)
1109:
1110: \bibitem[Oyaizu et al.(2007)]{Oyaizu07}
1111: Oyaizu, H., Lima, M., \& Cunha, C. et al., 2007, astro-ph/0711.0926
1112:
1113: \bibitem[Peacock \& Dodds(1996)]{PD96}
1114: Peacock, J.A. \& Dodds, S.J. 1996, MNRAS, 280, L19
1115:
1116: \bibitem[Rudd et al.(2008)]{Rudd07}
1117: Rudd, D., Zentner, A. \& Kravtsov, A., 2008, ApJ, 672, 19 (astro-ph/0703741)
1118:
1119: \bibitem[Schneider et al.(2006)]{Schneider06}
1120: Schneider, M., Knox, L., Zhan, H., \& Connolly, A., 2006, \apj, 651, 14 (astro-ph/0606098)
1121:
1122: \bibitem[Shapiro \& Cooray(2006)]{Shapiro06}
1123: Shapiro, C., \& Cooray, A., 2006, JCAP, 0603, 007 (astro-ph/0601226)
1124:
1125: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{Speetal03}
1126: Spergel, D.N. 2003, ApJ, 148, 175
1127:
1128: \bibitem[Stabenau et al.(2007)]{Stabenau07}
1129: Stabenau, H. F., Connolly, A., \& Jain, B., 2007, astro-ph/0712.1594
1130:
1131: \bibitem[Vale et al.(2004)]{Vale_Hoekstra}
1132: Vale, C., Hoekstra, H., van Waerbeke, L. \& White, M. 2004,
1133: ApJ, 613, L1
1134:
1135: \bibitem[Vale \& White(2003)]{Vale_White}
1136: Vale, C. \& White, M., 2003, ApJ, 592, 699
1137:
1138: \bibitem[White(2004)]{White_baryons}
1139: White, M., 2004, Astroparticle. Phys., 22, 211
1140:
1141: \bibitem[White(2005)]{White_reduced}
1142: White, M., 2005, Astroparticle. Phys., 23, 349
1143:
1144: \bibitem[White \& Vale(2004)]{White_Vale}
1145: White, M. \& Vale, C., 2004, Astroparticle. Phys., 22, 19
1146:
1147: \bibitem[Wittman et al.(2007)]{Wittman07}
1148: Wittman, D., Riechers, P., \& Margoniner V.E., 2007, ApJ, 671, L109,
1149: (astro-ph/0709.3330)
1150:
1151: \bibitem[Zentner et al.(2008)]{Zentner07}
1152: Zentner, A., Rudd, D., \& Hu, W., 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 043507
1153: (astro-ph/0709.4029)
1154:
1155: \bibitem[Zhan \& Knox(2004)]{Zhan_Knox}
1156: Zhan, H. \& Knox, L. 2004, ApJ, 616, L75
1157:
1158: \end{thebibliography}
1159:
1160: \end{document}
1161: