1: %%

2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'

3: %% 

4: %% Modified 2004 January 9

5: %%

6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the

7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.

8: 

9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document

10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore

11: %% any data that comes before this command.

12: 

13: %% The command below calls the preprint style

14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.

15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use

16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.

17: %%

18:  

19: \documentclass{emulateapj}

20: %\usepackage{apjfonts,graphics}

21: 

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

23: \usepackage{graphics,graphicx,rotating}

24: 

25: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:

26: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

27: 

28: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:

29: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

30: 

31: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the

32: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,

33: %% use the longabstract style option.

34: 

35: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}

36: 

37: 

38: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so

39: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before

40: %% the \begin{document} command.

41: %% 

42: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts

43: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing

44: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide

45: %% for information. 

46: 

47: \newcommand{\simgt}{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}

48: \newcommand{\simlt}{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}

49: \newcommand{\gIII}{I\hspace{-.3mm}I\hspace{-.3mm}I}

50: 

51: \def\bbeta{\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}

52: \def\btheta{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}

53: \def\bnabla{\mbox{\boldmath $\nabla$}}

54: \def\bk{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}

55: \def\bvtheta{\mbox{\boldmath $\vartheta$}}

56: \def\bdelta{\mbox{\boldmath $\Delta$}}

57: \def\bphi{\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}

58: 

59: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.

60: 

61: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}

62: 

63: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although

64: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.

65: %% The left head contains a list of authors,

66: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.).  The right

67: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.

68: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.

69: 

70: \shorttitle{Combining Lens Distortion and Depletion}

71: \shortauthors{Umetsu \& Broadhurst}

72: 

73: %% This is the end of the preamble.  Indicate the beginning of the

74: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.

75: 

76: \begin{document}

77: 

78: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than

79: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if

80: %% you desire.

81: 

82: 

83: \title{

84: Combining Lens Distortion and Depletion to Map the

85: Mass Distribution of A1689\altaffilmark{1}

86: }

87: 

88: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format

89: %% author and affiliation information.

90: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command

91: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address

92: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.

93: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.

94: 

95: 

96: \author{Keiichi Umetsu\altaffilmark{2,3}}

97: \email{keiichi@asiaa.sinica.edu.tw}

98: %\and

99: \author{Tom Broadhurst\altaffilmark{4}}

100: \email{tjb@wise.tau.ac.il}

101: 

102: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which

103: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name.  Specify alternate

104: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each

105: %% affiliation.

106: 

107: \altaffiltext{1}{Based in part on data collected at the Subaru Telescope,

108:   which is operated by the National Astronomical Society of Japan}

109: \altaffiltext{2}

110:  {Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Academia Sinica,  P.~O. Box

111:  23-141, Taipei 106,  Taiwan}

112: \altaffiltext{3}

113:  {Leung center for Cosmology and Particle Astrophysics,

114:   National Taiwan University, Taipei 106, Taiwan}

115: \altaffiltext{4}

116:  {

117: School of Physics and Astronomy, Tel Aviv University, Israel

118: }

119: 

120: 

121: 

122: 

123: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript

124: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the

125: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author

126: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the

127: %% editorial office after submission.

128: 

129: \begin{abstract}

130: We derive a projected 2D mass map of the well studied galaxy cluster

131: A1689 based on an entropy-regularized maximum-likelihood combination

132: of the lens magnification and distortion of red background galaxies

133: registered in deep Subaru images. The method is not restricted to the

134: weak regime but applies to the whole area outside the tangential

135: critical curve, where non-linearity between the surface mass-density

136: and the observables extends to a radius of a few arcminutes. The known

137: strong lensing information is also readily incorporated in this

138: approach, represented as a central pixel with a mean surface density

139: close to the critical value. We also utilize the distortion

140: measurements to locally downweight the intrinsic clustering noise,

141: which otherwise perturbs the depletion signal. The resulting 2D map

142: shows that the surface density of A1689 is smoothly varying and

143: symmetric, similar to the distribution of cluster members, with no

144: apparent substructure at $r \simgt 130 {\rm kpc}/h$ ($\sim 1\arcmin$).

145: The projected mass profile continuously steepens with radius and is well

146: fitted by the Navarro-Frenk-White model, but with a surprising large

147: concentration $c_{\rm vir}=13.4^{+5.3}_{-3.3}$, lying far from the

148: predicted value of $c_{\rm vir}\sim 5$, corresponding to the measured

149: virial mass, $M_{\rm vir}=(2.1\pm 0.2)\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$, 

150: posing a challenge to the standard assumptions defining the $\Lambda$CDM

151: model. We examine the consistency of our results with estimates

152: derived with the standard weak lensing estimators and by

153: comparison with the inner mass profile obtained from strong lensing.

154: All the reconstructions tested here imply a virial mass in the range,

155: $M_{\rm vir}=(1.5-2.1)\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$, and the combined ACS

156: and Subaru-2D mass reconstruction yields a tight constraint on the

157: concentration parameter, $c_{\rm vir}=12.7\pm 1\pm2.8$

158: ($c_{200}\sim 10$), improving upon the statistical accuracy of our

159:  earlier 1D analysis. 

160: Importantly, our best fitting profile properly reproduces

161: the observed Einstein radius of $45''$ ($z_s=1$), in contrast to

162: other weak lensing work, reporting lower concentration profiles,

163: which underestimate the observed Einstein radius.

164: \end{abstract}

165: 

166: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented

167: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors

168: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine

169: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.

170: 

171: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper

172: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so in the

173: %% subject header.  Objects should be in the appropriate "individual"

174: %% headers (e.g. quasars: individual, stars: individual, etc.) with the

175: %% additional provision that the total number of headers, including each

176: %% individual object, not exceed six.  The \objectname{} macro, and its

177: %% alias \object{}, is used to mark each object.  The macro takes the object

178: %% name as its primary argument.  This name will appear in the paper

179: %% and serve as the link's anchor in the electronic edition if the name

180: %% is recognized by the data centers.  The macro also takes an optional

181: %% argument in parentheses in cases where the data center identification

182: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.

183: 

184: %\keywords{globular clusters: general ---

185: %globular clusters: individual(\objectname{NGC 6397},

186: %\object{NGC 6624}, \objectname[M 15]{NGC 7078},

187: %\object[Cl 1938-341]{Terzan 8})}

188: 

189: 

190: %% Modified by KU (2007/07/21) 

191: \keywords{cosmology: observations --- dark matter --- galaxies: clusters:

192: individual (A1689) --- gravitational lensing}

193: 

194: 

195: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.

196: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep

197: %% and \citet commands to identify citations.  The citations are

198: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds

199: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have

200: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus

201: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for

202: %% each reference.

203: 

204: 

205: \section{Introduction}

206: 

207: 

208: Weak gravitational lensing of background galaxies provides a unique,

209: direct way to study the mass distribution of galaxy clusters

210: (Bartelmann \& Schneider 2001) via the systematic shape distortion of

211: background galaxies (Tyson, Wenk, \& Valdes 1990; Kaiser \& Squires

212: 1993; Schneider \& Seitz 1996; Umetsu, Tada, \& Futamase 1999) and

213: also to a lesser extent by the magnification of the background

214: (Broadhurst, Taylor, \& Peacock 1995; Taylor et al. 1998). We have

215: examined both these effects in our earlier work on A1689 (Broadhurst

216: et al. 2005a, hereafter B05a), where we found good consistency between

217: the magnitude of the radial depletion of background red galaxies

218: caused by lens magnification and the weak lensing distortion profile

219: of the same background galaxy population, which we then combined to

220: derive an improved mass profile.

221: 

222: A limitation of the magnification technique is the intrinsic

223: clustering of the background, which for red galaxies is mainly in the

224: form of localized groups of modest angular size in the background

225: field. In principle, with redshift information sharp overdensities can

226: be isolated in redshift and down weighted, or with sufficiently large

227: number of redshifts, the shift of the magnified luminosity function

228: can be utilized independently of density fluctuations 

229: (Broadhurst et al. 1995; Zhang \& Pen 2005). 

230: The combination of all lensing related effects is of course

231: desirable, leading to the derivation of the highest precision feasible

232: when constructing mass maps and density profiles. Furthermore, because

233: lensing effects depend on distance, the cosmological redshift

234: distance relation may be constrained via the geometric scaling of the lensing

235: signal with redshift (e.g., Taylor et al. 2007; Medezinski et

236: al. 2007).

237: 

238: Advances in the quality of imaging encourage a closer examination

239: of the empirical effects of lensing and the development of more

240: comprehensive techniques to extract reliable high resolution

241: information. From space, deep multi-color images of massive clusters

242: can be used to identify many sets of multiple images per cluster

243: (Broadhurst et al. 2005b, hereafter B05b; Gavazzi et al. 2003; Kneib et

244: al. 2004; Sand et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2005; 

245: Brada${\check {\rm c}}$ et al. 2006).  

246: From the ground the stable prime-focus wide-field cameras

247: of Subaru and CFHT are producing data of sufficient quality to examine

248: weak lensing distortions over a wide range of radius. 

249: %(e.g.,van Waerbeke et al. 2000; Miyazaki et al. 2002; Sato et al. 2003;

250: %Hamana et al. 2003; Gavazzi et al. 2004; Hoekstra et al. 2006; Mahdavi

251: %et al. 2007; Medezinski et al. 2007; Okabe \& Umetsu 2008).

252: %%% 

253: More recently, wide-field near IR cameras, such as MOIRCS on Subaru

254: WIRCAM on CFHT, OMEGA2000 on

255: Calar-Alto and WFCAM on UKIRT, may help improve the accuracy of

256: photometric redshifts for many faint galaxies.  However, it is still

257: the case that no set of deep high quality wide field images exists for

258: any massive cluster with full optical-IR coverage, despite all the

259: progress of field surveys.

260: 

261: 

262: 

263: A further motivation for pursuing accurate lensing maps is the

264: increased precision of model predictions for statistical properties

265: of cluster-sized mass halos in the standard Lambda cold dark matter

266: ($\Lambda$CDM) model.  

267: Many of the free parameters of this model now rest on a firm empirical

268: foundation with relatively tight constraints on the index and

269: normalization of the power spectrum of density perturbation and the

270: background cosmological model (e.g., Spergel et al. 2003; Tegmark et

271: al. 2004; Spergel et al. 2007).

272: %%%

273: In this context $N$-body simulations have become impressively

274: comprehensive, in particular the recent Millennium simulation

275: (Springel et al. 2005) which simulates a huge volume of $500 {\rm

276: Mpc}/h$, and has been used to predict the mass function and evolution

277: of nearly 100,000 group and cluster sized CDM halos.

278: %%%%

279: This model is tightly defined and hence amenable to comparisons with

280: the real Universe, particularly for the case of clusters where baryons,

281: which are usually omitted from large scale simulation, are not expected 

282: to have a significant impact on the shape of gravitational potential of 

283: a cluster since the high temperature of the cluster gas prevents

284: efficient cooling, and hence the majority of baryons simply trace 

285: the gravitational potential of the dominant dark matter.

286: %This model is tightly proscribed and is amenable to comparisons with

287: %the real Universe, particularly for the case of clusters where baryons

288: %which are absent from this simulation are not expected to have a

289: %significant impact on the gravitational potential of a cluster due to

290: %the high temperature of cluster gas preventing efficient cooling, so

291: %that the majority of baryons simply trace the gravitational potential

292: %of the dominant dark matter.

293: %%%%%

294: Accurate $N$-body simulations based on the $\Lambda$CDM scenario predict

295: a relatively shallow, low-concentration mass profile for massive cluster

296: halos, where the logarithmic gradient flattens continuously toward the

297: center of mass (Navarro, Frenk, \& White 1997, hereafter NFW)

298: with a flatter central slope than a purely isothermal

299: body interior to the inner characteristic radius,

300: $r_s \simlt  100-200 {\rm kpc}/h$.

301: %%%

302: A useful index of the degree of concentration, $c_{\rm vir}$,

303: compares the virial radius, $r_{\rm vir}$, to 

304: $r_s$ of the NFW profile, $c_{\rm vir} \equiv r_{\rm vir}/r_s$.

305: %Massive clusters are of particular interest in the context of this

306: %model, because they are predicted to

307: %have a relatively shallow mass profile (or low concentration) 

308: %fitted described by the form proposed by Navarro, Frenk, \& White

309: %(1996). 

310: This prediction for the CDM halo $c_{\rm vir}$--$M_{\rm vir}$ relation 

311: has been established thoroughly with high resolution

312: simulations (e.g., Navarro et al. 1997; Bullock et al. 2001; Wechsler et  

313: al. 2002; Neto et al. 2007)

314: with some intrinsic variation related to the individual assembly

315: history of a cluster (e.g., Jing \& Suto 2000; Tasitsiomi et al. 2004;

316: Hennawi et al. 2007).

317: %%%

318: In particular, the detailed $N$-body millennium simulation (Springel et

319: al. 2005) predicts a simple relationship between the halo mass and 

320: concentration parameter for halo masses in the range of galaxy groups

321: to massive clusters, as quantified by Neto et al. (2007),

322: who found that the expected median value for cluster sized halos

323: of $M_{\rm vir}\sim 10^{15}M_\odot$ to be $c_{\rm vir}\sim 5$ at $z=0$

324: ($c_{200}\sim 4$), 

325: with a spread of the order of $\Delta\log_{10}c_{\rm vir}=0.1$.

326: (see Johnston et al. 2007 for a good summary of the state of art in halo

327: concentrations based on Wechsler et al. 2006 and Neto et al. 2007).     

328: 

329: 

330: In this paper we explore further methods designed to achieve the

331: maximum possible lensing precision by combining all lensing

332: information for A1689. This cluster is among the most massive clusters

333: with the largest known Einstein radius ($\sim 50\arcsec$), and is one of

334: the best studied clusters for lensing work (Tyson et al. 1990; 

335:  Tyson \& Fisher 1995; Taylor et al. 1998; King, Clowe, \& Schneider

336:  2002; Bardeaul et al. 2005; B05a; B05b; Oguri et al. 2005; Halkola,

337:  Seitz, \& Pannella 2006; Bardeau et al. 2007; Limousin et al. 2007;

338:  Medezinski et al. 2007;  Umetsu, Takada, \& Broadhurst 2007;

339:  Okura, Umetsu, \& Futamase 2008), located at a moderately low redshift 

340: of $z=0.183$. 

341: %%%

342: In B05a we developed a 

343: %{\bf maximum likelihood method for} 

344: ``model-independent'' method\footnote{We remind the reader that model 

345: dependence is unavoidable to some extent in scientific analysis.

346: In this work we define the term ``model independent'' to refer to

347: those methods without prior assumptions about the functional form 

348: of the lensing profiles and distributions.} 

349: for reconstructing the cluster mass profile using azimuthally-averaged

350: weak-lensing shape distortion and magnification bias measurements, in

351: the wide-field, Subaru images. This together with many multiple images

352: identified in deep {\it Hubble Space Telescope} (HST) Advanced Camera

353: for Surveys (ACS) imaging defined a detailed lensing based

354: cluster mass profile out to the cluster virial radius ($r\simlt 2

355: h^{-1}$ Mpc). The combined strong and weak lensing mass profile is

356: well fitted by an NFW profile (Navarro et al. 1997) with

357: high concentration of $c_{\rm vir}\sim 13.7$, which is significantly

358: larger than theoretically expected ($c_{\rm vir}\sim 5$) for the

359: standard $\Lambda$CDM model (Bullock et al. 2001; Neto et al. 2007),

360: although the degree of concentration is still controversial (B05a;

361: Medezinski et al. 2007; Limousin et al. 2007).

362: %%%

363: Such a high concentration is also seen in other massive clusters

364: from careful lensing work, such as MS 2137-23 ($c_{200}\simeq 12$,

365: Gavazzi et al. 2003) and  CL0024+1654  ($c_{200}\simeq 22$, Kneib et

366: al. 2003).  These results could raise serious questions regarding the

367: basic assumptions behind the $\Lambda$CDM model. If clusters collapse

368: earlier than predicted then it is expected that denser and hence more

369: concentrated halos will develop in the context of CDM (Wechsler et

370: al. 2002). 

371: %%%

372: On the other hand, it has been argued that part of this discrepancy from

373: lensing observations could be reconciled by observational effects such

374: as triaxiality of CDM halos (Oguri et al. 2005;

375: Hennawi et al. 2007; Sereno 2007; Corless \& King 2007), and the

376: projection of structure along the line of sight (e.g., King \& Corless

377: 2007), 

378: both of which boost the projected surface mass density and hence the

379: lensing  signal. Such observational biases in the lensing-based

380: concentration parameter have been explored in details by

381: Hennawi et al. (2007) on the basis of $N$-body simulations, 

382: indicating a positive bias of $\sim 30\%$ in the halo concentration

383: derived from 2D lensing measurements. Although A1689 is a very round

384: shaped cluster with evidence of only modest substructure (Teague,

385: Carter, \& Grey 1990; Girardi et al. 1997; Andersson \& Madejski 2004;

386:  Czoske 2004; B05b), such a chance alignment of structure could be a

387:  potential source of high concentrations.

388: %%%

389: Furthermore, for a reliable measurement of the cluster mass profile, 

390: systematic errors inherent in the lensing measurements, such

391: as the uncertainty in the background redshift distribution

392: and the dilution effect on the lensing signal due to contamination by

393: cluster  members (B05a; Medezinski et al. 2007), need to be taken into

394: account. 

395: 

396: 

397:  

398: The paper is organized as follows.  

399: We briefly summarize in \S 2 the basis of cluster weak lensing.

400: %In \S 3 we describe the observational data, background sample selection,

401: %and joint weak lensing analysis of shape distortion and magnification

402: %bias data. 

403: In \S 3 we describe the observational data and 

404: the background sample selection for the weak

405: lensing analysis;

406: %%%

407: we then 

408: %%% outline

409: summarize

410: our joint weak lensing analysis of shape distortion and magnification

411: bias data.

412: %A combind weak lensing shape analysis of A1689 is presented in \S 3.

413: %In \S 4 we describe our magnification bias measurements in A1689.

414: %%%

415: In \S 4 we present a method for reconstructing the two-dimensional mass

416: distribution of A1689 from combined weak lensing shape distortion and

417: magnification bias measurements.

418: %%

419: In \S 5 we derive mass profiles of A1689 from weak lensing data using

420: three different methods, and compare resulting mass profiles; we also

421: combine our weak lensing mass profiles with strong lensing constraints

422: from previous studies to test the CDM paradigm; 

423: then, we assess carefully various

424: sources of potential systematic error in the halo concentration

425: parameter derived from the lensing observations.

426: Finally, summary and

427: discussions are given in \S 6.

428: 

429: %%%

430: 

431: Throughout this paper, we use the AB magnitude system, and adopt a

432: concordance $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with ($\Omega_{\rm m0}=0.3$,

433: $\Omega_{\Lambda 0}=0.7$, $h=0.7$).

434: %%%

435: In this cosmology one arcminute corresponds to the physical scale

436: $129$kpc$/h$ for this cluster.  The reference center of our analysis

437: is fixed at the center of the cD galaxy: ${\rm RA} = 13:11:29.52, {\rm

438: Dec} = -01:20:27.59$ (J2000.0).

439: 

440: 

441: 

442: 

443: \section{Cluster Weak Lensing}

444: \label{sec:wl}

445: 

446: Weak gravitational lensing is responsible for the weak shape-distortion

447: and magnification of the images of background sources due to the

448: gravitational field of intervening foreground clusters of galaxies

449: and large scale structures in the universe.

450: The deformation of the image can be 

451: described by the $2\times 2$

452: Jacobian matrix $\cal{A}_{\alpha\beta}$

453: ($\alpha,\beta=1,2$)

454: of the lens mapping.

455: The Jacobian ${\cal A}_{\alpha\beta}$ is real and symmetric, so that

456: it can be decomposed as

457: \begin{eqnarray}

458: \label{eq:jacob}

459: {\cal A}_{\alpha\beta} &=& (1-\kappa)\delta_{\alpha\beta}

460:  -\Gamma_{\alpha\beta},\\

461: \Gamma_{\alpha\beta}&=&

462: \left( 

463: \begin{array}{cc} 

464: +{\gamma}_1   & {\gamma}_2 \\

465:  {\gamma}_2  & -{\gamma}_1 

466: \end{array} 

467: \right),

468: \end{eqnarray}

469: where 

470: $\delta_{\alpha\beta}$ is Kronecker's delta,

471: $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ is the trace-free, symmetric shear matrix

472: %defined as $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}=\gamma_1\sigma_3+\gamma_2\sigma1$

473: with $\gamma_{\alpha}$ being the components of 

474: spin-2

475: complex gravitational

476: shear $\gamma:=\gamma_1+i\gamma_2$,

477: describing the anisotropic shape distortion,

478: %and $\sigma_{\alpha}$ being the $2\times 2$ Pauli matrices,

479: and $\kappa$ is the 

480: %$\kappa(\btheta)=\int\! d\Sigma\,\Sigma_{\rm crit}^{-1}$ is the

481: lensing convergence responsible for the 

482: trace-part of the Jacobian matrix, describing the isotropic area

483: distortion.

484: In the weak lensing limit where $\kappa,|\gamma|\ll 1$, 

485: $\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ induces a quadrupole anisotropy of the 

486: background image, which can be observed from ellipticities 

487: of background galaxy images.

488: %%%%

489: The flux  magnification due to gravitational lensing

490: is given by the inverse Jacobian

491: determinant,

492: \begin{equation}

493: \label{eq:mu}

494: \mu = 

495: \frac{1}{{\rm det}{\cal A}}

496: =

497: \frac{1}{(1-\kappa)^2-|\gamma|^2},

498: \end{equation}

499: where we assume subcritical lensing, i.e., 

500: ${\rm det}{\cal A}(\btheta)>0$.

501: 

502: 

503: The lensing convergence is expressed as a line-of-sight projection

504: of the matter density contrast out to the source plane (${\rm S}$)

505: weighted by certain combination $g$ of co-moving angular diameter distances

506: (e.g., Jain et al. 2000),

507: \begin{equation} 

508: \label{eq:kappa}

509: \kappa =  

510: \frac{3H_0^2\Omega_m}{2c^2}

511: \int_0^{\chi_{\rm S}}\!d\chi\, g(\chi,\chi_{\rm

512:  S})\frac{\delta}{a} 

513: \equiv \int\!d\Sigma_m\,\Sigma_{\rm crit}^{-1}

514: \end{equation}

515: %$\kappa(\btheta)=\int\! d\Sigma\,\Sigma_{\rm crit}^{-1}$,

516: where $a$ is the cosmic scale factor, $\chi$ is the co-moving distance;

517: $\Sigma_m$ is the surface mass density of matter, $\Sigma_m

518: =\int_0^{\chi_{\rm S}}\!d\chi \, a(\rho_m-\bar{\rho})$,

519: with respect to the cosmic mean density $\bar{\rho}$, and

520: %where 

521: $\Sigma_{\rm crit}$ 

522: is the critical surface mass density for gravitational lensing,

523: \begin{equation}

524: \label{eq:sigmacrit}

525: \Sigma_{\rm crit} = \frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\frac{D_{s}}{D_d D_{ds}}

526: \end{equation}

527: with $D_s$, $D_d$, and $D_{ds}$ being the angular diameter distances

528: from the observer to the source, from the observer to the deflecting

529: lens, and from the lens to the source, respectively.

530: For a fixed background cosmology and a lens redshift $z_d$,

531: $\Sigma_{\rm crit}$ is a function of background source redshift

532: $z_s$.

533: %In the following we closely follow the standard notation of 

534: %Bartelmann \& Schneider (2001).

535: For a given mass distribution $\Sigma(\btheta)$, the lensing signal is

536: proportional to the angular diameter distance ratio,

537: $D_{ds}/D_s$.

538: %\begin{equation} 

539: %\label{eq:dratio}

540: %D(z_s) \equiv D_{ds}/D_s.

541: %\end{equation}

542: 

543: In the present weak lensing study we aim to reconstruct

544: the dimensionless surface mass density $\kappa$ 

545: from weak lensing distortion and magnification data.

546: To do this, we utilize the relation between the gradients of 

547: $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ (Kaiser 1995; Crittenden et al. 2002),

548: \begin{equation}

549: \label{eq:local}

550: \triangle \kappa (\btheta)

551: = \partial^{\alpha}\partial^{\beta}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}(\btheta)

552: = 2\hat{\cal D}^*\gamma(\btheta)

553: \end{equation}

554: where 

555: $\hat{\cal D}$ is the complex differential operator

556: $\hat{\cal D}=(\partial_1^2-\partial_2^2)/2+i\partial_1\partial_2$.

557: The Green's function for the two-dimensional Poisson equation is

558: $\triangle^{-1}(\btheta,\btheta')=\ln|\btheta-\btheta'|/(2\pi)$,

559: so that equation (\ref{eq:local}) can be solved to yield the following

560: non-local relation between $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ (Kaiser \& Squires 1993):

561: \begin{equation}

562: \label{eq:gamma2kappa}

563: \kappa(\btheta) = 

564: \frac{1}{\pi}\int\!d^2\theta'\,D^*(\btheta-\btheta')\gamma(\btheta')

565: \end{equation}

566: where $D(\btheta)$ is the complex kernel defined as 

567: \begin{equation}

568: \label{eq:kerneld}

569: D(\btheta) = \frac{\theta_2^2-\theta_1^2-2i\theta_1\theta_2}{|\theta|^4}.

570: \end{equation}

571: Similarly, the spin-2 shear field can be expressed in terms of the

572: lensing convergence as

573: \begin{equation} 

574: \label{eq:kappa2gamma}

575: \gamma(\btheta) = 

576: \frac{1}{\pi}\int\!d^2\theta'\,D(\btheta-\btheta')\kappa(\btheta').

577: \end{equation} 

578: Note that adding a constant mass sheet to $\kappa$ in equation

579: (\ref{eq:kappa2gamma}) does not change the 

580: shear field

581: $\gamma(\btheta)$ which is observable in the weak lensing limit, 

582: leading to the so-called {\it mass-sheet degeneracy}

583: based solely on shape-distortion measurements (e.g., Bartelmann \&

584: Schneider 2001; Umetsu et al. 1999).

585: In general, the observable quantity is not the 

586: gravitational shear $\gamma$ but the {\it reduced} shear,

587: \begin{equation}

588: \label{eq:redshear}

589: g=\frac{\gamma}{1-\kappa}

590: \end{equation}

591: in the subcritical regime where ${\rm det}{\cal A}>0$

592: (or $1/g^*$ in the negative parity region with ${\rm det}{\cal A}<0$). 

593: We see that the reduced shear $g$ is invariant under the following

594: global transformation:

595: \begin{equation}

596: \label{eq:invtrans}

597: \kappa(\btheta) \to \lambda \kappa(\btheta) + 1-\lambda, \ \ \ 

598: \gamma(\btheta) \to \lambda \gamma(\btheta)

599: \end{equation}

600: with an arbitrary scalar constant $\lambda\ne 0$ 

601: (Schneider \& Seitz 1995). This transformation is equivalent to scaling 

602: the Jacobian matrix ${\cal A}(\btheta)$ with $\lambda$, 

603: $\cal {A}(\btheta) \to \lambda {\cal

604: A}(\btheta)$. This mass-sheet degeneracy can be unambiguously broken

605: by measuring the magnification effects, because the magnification $\mu$

606: transforms under the invariance transformation (\ref{eq:invtrans}) as

607: \begin{equation}

608: \mu(\btheta) \to \lambda^2 \mu(\btheta).

609: \end{equation}

610: 

611: 

612: 

613:  

614:  

615: 

616: \section{Data Analysis}

617: \label{sec:analysis}

618: 

619: In this section we present a full technical description of our weak

620: lensing distortion and magnification analyses on A1689 based on the

621: Subaru images, which were analysed in our earlier work of B05a and

622: Medezinski  et al. (2007).

623: This work is also based on the same weak lensing

624: shape and magnification measurements as used in

625: B05a. We note that Medezinski et al. (2007) used a slightly different

626: analysis pipeline so as to include the shape measurements of bright

627: cluster members and noisier objects (as well as better resolved red

628: background galaxies), optimizing for the weak lensing dilution analysis

629: including the measurements of cluster light and cluster luminosity

630: function where the completeness is crucial; Medezinski et al. (2007)

631: included a blue background population in the weak lensing shape

632: analysis, in addition to the red background population which B05a and

633: this work are based on; The magnification information, on the other

634: hand,  was not taken into account in Medezinski et al. (2007).

635: 

636: In B05a we simply assumed that the mean redshift of the red background

637: galaxies is $z_s=1$.

638: % based on deep photo-$z$ estimation for deep field

639: %data ($\bar z_s\simeq 1\pm 0.1$, Benitez et al. 2002).

640: In the present work we improve the accuracy of determination of the

641: cluster mass and concentration parameters, by taking into account the

642: redshift distribution of 

643: red background galaxies 

644: examined by Medezinski et al. (2007)

645: based on the multicolor photometry of Capak et al. (2004) in

646: the HDF-N (see \S \ref{subsec:red}).

647: 

648: 

649: 

650: \subsection{Subaru Data and Photometry}

651: \label{subsec:data}

652: 

653: For our weak lensing analysis

654: we used Subaru/Suprime-Cam imaging data of A1689 in $V$ 

655: %(1,920s) 

656: and SDSS $i'$ 

657: %(2,640s) 

658: retrieved from the Subaru archive,

659: SMOKA (see B05a and Medezinski et al. 2007 for more details).

660: The FWHM in the co-added mosaic image is 

661: $0\arcsec\!\!.82$ in $V$ and 

662: $0\arcsec\!\!.88$ in $i'$ with $0\arcsec\!\!.202$

663: pix$^{-1}$, covering a field of $\approx 30'\times 25'$.

664: %%%%

665: 

666: Photometry is based on a combined $V+i'$ image with SExtractor

667: (Bertin \& Arnouts 1996), where the $i'$ image is used as

668: the source detection image.

669: We adopt the following key configuration parameters 

670: in SExtractor:

671: ${\it DETECT\_MINAREA} = 5$,

672: ${\it DETECT\_THRESH}={\it ANALYSIS\_THRESH}=3$.

673: The limiting magnitudes are obtained as

674: $V=26.5$ and $i'=26.0$ for a $3\sigma$ detection within a $2$\arcsec

675: aperture.

676: A careful background selection is critical for a weak lensing analysis 

677: so that unlensed cluster members and

678: foreground galaxies to not dilute the true lensing signal of the background

679: (see B05a and Medezinski et al. 2007).

680: %%%

681: We identify an E/S0 sequence of cluster galaxies in the 

682: %%% @@ edited by KU (2008/02/18)

683: %% color-magnitude (CM) diagram, which can be defined by the linear

684: color-magnitude (CM) diagram, which can be defined by the linear

685: CM relation:

686: $(V-i')_{E/S}=-0.02094i'+1.255$ (B05a;

687: see Figure 1 of Medezinski et al. 2007 for the CM diagram).

688: %% We note that Medezinski et al. (2007) 

689: %% used slightly different values of the CM parameters for A1689.

690: For the number counts to measure lensing magnification, 

691: we define a sample of galaxies that are redder than the

692: cluster sequence by 

693: $(V-i')>1.0$ and $20<i'<25.5$,

694: which yields a total of $N_\mu= 8,907$ galaxies,

695: or the mean surface number density of $\bar{n}_{\mu}=12.0$ arcmin$^{-2}$.

696: %%%

697: For the magnification bias analysis, a conservative

698: magnitude limit of $i'<25.5$

699: is adopted to avoid incompleteness. 

700: 

701: 

702: 

703: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

704: 

705: 

706: \subsection{Weak Lensing Distortion Analysis}

707: \label{subsec:shear}

708: 

709: We use the IMCAT package developed by N. Kaiser

710: \footnote{http://www.ifa.hawaii/kaiser/IMCAT} to perform object

711: detection, photometry and shape measurements, following the formalism

712: outlined in  Kaiser, Squires, \& Broadhurst (1995; hereafter KSB).

713: We have modified the method somewhat following the procedures

714: described in Erben et al. (2001). We used the same analysis pipeline

715: as in 

716:     B05a,

717:     Umetsu et al. (2007), 

718: and Okabe \& Umetsu (2008).

719: 

720:  

721: \subsubsection{Object Detection}

722: \label{subsubsec:detection}

723: 

724: 

725: Objects are first detected as local peaks in the image by 

726: using the IMCAT hierarchical peak-finding

727: algorithm {\it hfindpeaks}

728: which for each object yields object parameters such as a peak position,

729: an estimate of the object size ($r_g$), the significance of

730: the peak detection ($\nu$).

731: %%%

732: The local sky level and its gradient are 

733: measured around each  object from the mode of pixel values 

734: on a circular annulus defined by

735: inner and outer radii of 

736: $16\times r_g$ and $32\times r_g$ (see Clowe et al. 2000).

737: In order to avoid contamination in the background estimation

738: by bright neighboring stars and/or

739: foreground galaxies,

740: all pixels within $3\times r_g$ of another object are excluded from the

741: mode calculation. Total fluxes and half-light radii ($r_h$) are then

742:  measured on sky-subtracted images using a circular aperture of

743:  radius $3\sqrt{2}\times r_g$ from the object center. Any pixels within

744:  $2.5\times r_g$ of another object are excluded from the aperture.

745: The aperture $i'$-magnitude is then calculated from the measured total

746: flux and a zero-point magnitude.

747: Any objects with positional  differences between the

748: peak location and the weighted-centroid 

749: greater than $d=0.4$ pixels are excluded from

750: the catalog.

751: 

752: 

753: Finally, bad objects such as spikes, saturated stars, and noisy

754: detections 

755: %and groups

756: %of objects detested as a single object 

757: must be removed from the weak lensing object

758: catalog. 

759: %%%

760: We removed from our object catalog 

761: (1) extremely large objects with $r_g>10$ pixels, 

762: (2) objects with low detection significance, $\nu<7$,

763: (3) objects with large raw ellipticities, $|e|>0.5$, 

764: (4) noisy detections with unphysical negative fluxes, and

765: (5) objects containing more than $10$ bad pixels, ${\it nbad}>10$.

766: %%%%

767: This selection procedure yields an object catalog with

768: $N=62,384$ ($82.6$ arcmin$^-2$).

769: 

770: 

771: 

772: 

773: 

774: \subsubsection{Weak Lensing Distortion Measurements}

775: \label{subsubsec:shape}

776: 

777: 

778: To obtain an estimate of the reduced shear,

779: $g_{\alpha}=\gamma_{\alpha}/(1-\kappa)$ ($\alpha=1,2$), 

780: we measure the image ellipticity 

781: $e_{\alpha} = \left\{Q_{11}-Q_{22}, Q_{12} \right\}/(Q_{11}+Q_{22})$ 

782: from the weighted quadrupole moments of the surface brightness of

783: individual galaxies defined in the above catalog,

784: \begin{equation}

785: Q_{\alpha\beta} = \int\!d^2\theta\,

786:  W({\theta})\theta_{\alpha}\theta_{\beta} 

787: I({\btheta})

788: \ \ \ (\alpha,\beta=1,2)

789: \end{equation} 

790: where $I(\btheta)$ is the surface brightness distribution of an object,

791: $W(\theta)$ is a Gaussian window function matched to the size of the

792: object. 

793: 

794: 

795: Firstly the PSF anisotropy needs to be corrected using the star images

796: as references:

797: \begin{equation}

798: e'_{\alpha} = e_{\alpha} - P_{sm}^{\alpha \beta} q^*_{\beta} 

799: \label{eq:qstar}

800: \end{equation}

801: where $P_{sm}$ is the {\it smear polarizability} tensor  

802: being close to diagonal, and

803: $q^*_{\alpha} = (P_{sm}^*)^{-1}_{\alpha \beta}e_*^{\beta}$ 

804: is the stellar anisotropy kernel.

805: We select bright, unsaturated foreground stars 

806: of $20\simlt i' \simlt 22.5$

807: identified in a branch

808: of the half-light radius ($r_h$) vs. magnitude ($i'$) diagram

809: %($20<i'<22.5$, $\left<r_h\right>_{\rm median}=2.38$ pixels) 

810: to measure $q^*_{\alpha}$.

811: %%% 

812: In order to obtain a smooth map of $q^*_{\alpha}$ which is used in

813: equation (\ref{eq:qstar}), we divided the co-added mosaic image of

814: $9{\rm K}\times 7.4{\rm K}$ pixels into $5\times 4$ blocks,

815: each with $1.8{\rm K}\times 1.85{\rm K}$

816: pixels. The block length is based on the typical coherent

817: scale of PSF anisotropy patterns.  In this way the PSF anisotropy in

818: individual blocks can be well described by fairly low-order

819: polynomials.

820: %

821: We then fitted the $q^*$ in each block independently with

822: second-order bi-polynomials, $q_*^{\alpha}(\btheta)$, in

823: conjunction with iterative $\sigma$-clipping rejection on each

824: component of the residual:

825: $\delta e^* = e^*_{\alpha}-(P_{sm}^*)^{\alpha\beta}q^*_{\beta}(\btheta)$.  

826: %%%%

827: The final stellar sample consists of 540 stars

828: (i.e., $N_* \sim 30$ stars per block), 

829: or the mean surface number

830: density of $\bar{n}_*=0.72$ arcmin$^{-2}$. 

831: %%%%%

832: It is worth

833: noting that the mean stellar ellipticity before correction is

834: $(\bar{e_1}^*, \bar{e_2}^*) \simeq (-0.013, -0.018)$ 

835: over the data field, while the residual

836: $e^*_{\alpha}$ after correction

837: is reduced to 

838: $ {\bar{e}^{*{\rm res}}_1} = (0.47\pm 1.32)\times 10^{-4}$, 

839: $ {\bar{e}^{*{\rm res}}_2} = (0.54\pm 0.94)\times 10^{-4}$;

840: The mean offset from the null expectation is reduced down to 

841: $|\bar{e}^{* \rm res}| = (0.71\pm 1.12) \times 10^{-4}$.

842: %%%%%%

843: On the other hand, the rms value of stellar ellipticities,

844: $\sigma_{e*}\equiv \sqrt{\left<|e^*|^2\right>}$, is reduced from $2.64\%$ to

845: $0.38\%$ when applying the anisotropic PSF correction.

846: %%%%%

847: We show in Figure \ref{fig:anisopsf1}

848: the quadrupole PSF anisotropy field

849: as measured from stellar ellipticities before and after the anisotropic

850: PSF correction.

851: Figure \ref{fig:anisopsf2} shows

852: the distribution of stellar ellipticity

853: components before and after the PSF anisotropy correction.

854: %%%%

855: From the rest of the object

856: catalog, we select objects with 

857: $\bar{r}_{h*} \lesssim r_h \lesssim 10$ pixels

858: as an $i'$-selected weak lensing galaxy sample, 

859: where $\bar{r}_{h*}\approx 2.4$ pixels

860: is the median value of stellar half-light radii,

861: corresponding to half the median width of circularized PSF

862: over the data field.

863: An apparent magnitude cutoff 

864: of $20 \simlt i' \simlt 26$

865: is also made to remove from

866: the weak lensing galaxy sample bright foreground/cluster galaxies

867: and very faint galaxies with noisy shape measurements.

868: %%%%

869: 

870: %%%

871: Second, we need to correct image ellipticities for

872: the isotropic smearing effect 

873: caused by atmospheric seeing and the window function used for the shape

874: measurements. The pre-seeing reduced shear $g_\alpha$ can be

875: estimated from 

876: \begin{equation}

877: \label{eq:raw_g}

878: g_{\alpha} =(P_g^{-1})_{\alpha\beta} e'_{\beta}

879: \end{equation}

880: with the {\it pre-seeing shear polarizability} tensor

881: $P^g_{\alpha\beta}$.

882: We follow the procedure described in Erben et al. (2000)

883: to measure

884: $P^g$.

885: %%%

886: We adopt the scalar correction scheme, namely

887: \begin{equation}

888: (P_g)_{\alpha\beta}

889: =\frac{1}{2}{\rm tr}[P_g]\delta_{\alpha\beta}\equiv

890: P^{\rm s}_{g}\delta_{\alpha\beta}

891: \end{equation}

892: (Erben et al. 2000; 

893:  Hoekstra et al. 1998; 

894:  Hudson et al. 1998; 

895:  Okabe \& Umetsu 2008).

896: 

897: 

898: In order to suppress artificial effects due to the noisy

899: $P_g^{\rm s}$ estimated for individual galaxies, we apply filtering 

900: to raw $P_g^{\rm s}$ measurements. Firstly, we discard those noisy

901: objects which have negative raw $P_g^{\rm s}$ values.

902: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

903: Secondly, 

904: we compute for each object 

905: a median value

906: of $P_g^{\rm s}$ among $N$-neighbors in the size $r_g$ and magnitude

907: $i'$ plane to define object parameter space: for each object,

908: $N$-neighbors are identified in the size ($r_g$) and magnitude ($i'$)

909: plane;

910: the median value of $P_g^{\rm s}$ is used as the smoothed

911: $P_g^{\rm s}$ for the object, $\langle P_g^{\rm s}\rangle$,

912: and the variance $\sigma^2_{g}$ 

913: of $g=g_1+ig_2$ is calculated using equation (\ref{eq:raw_g}).

914: %%%

915: The dispersion $\sigma_g$ is used as an rms error of the shear estimate

916: for individual galaxies.

917: We take $N=30$.

918: After filtering noisy $P_g^{\rm s}$ measurements,

919: the minimum value of $\langle P_g^{\rm s}\rangle$ is $\approx 0.035$.

920: %%%%%

921: Figure \ref{fig:Pg} shows the averaged $\langle P_g^{\rm s}\rangle$

922: as a function of object size $r_g$ for the $i'$-selected

923: weak lensing galaxy sample.

924: The mean of 

925: $\langle P_g^{\rm s}\rangle$ over all galaxies in the sample is obtained

926: as $0.307$, mostly weighted by galaxies with $r_g = 2-3$ pixels.

927: %%%

928: The mean variance $\overline{\sigma_g^2}$ 

929: over the galaxy sample is obtained as

930: $\simeq 0.152$, or $\sqrt{\overline{\sigma_g^2}}\approx 0.39$. 

931: %%%

932: Finally, we use the following estimator for 

933: the reduced shear:

934: $g_{\alpha} = e'_{\alpha}/\left< P_g^{\rm s}\right>$.

935: %%%

936: The final $i'$-selected galaxy sample 

937: contains $30,369$

938: galaxies or $\bar{n}_g\simeq 40.3$ arcmin$^{-2}$.

939: 

940: 

941: 

942: 

943: 

944: 

945: \subsection{Red Background Selection}

946: \label{subsec:red}

947: 

948: As demonstrated by B05a

949: and Medezinski et al. (2007), it is crucial 

950: in the weak lensing analysis

951: to make a secure selection of background galaxies in order

952: to minimize contamination by 

953: cluster/foreground galaxies and hence to make an accurate determination 

954: of the cluster mass,

955: otherwise dilution of the distortion signal results from

956: the inclusion of unlensed cluster galaxies, particularly at small radius

957: where the cluster is relatively dense.

958: %%%

959: This dilution effect is 

960: simply to reduce the strength of

961: the lensing signal when averaged over a local ensemble of 

962: galaxies, 

963: in proportion to the fraction of unlensed cluster/foreground galaxies

964: %cluster/foreground galaxies

965: whose orientations are randomly distributed, thus diluting the lensing

966: signal relative to the reference background level derived from

967: the background population (Medezinski et al. 2007).

968: %%%%%

969: With a pure red background sample (B) as a reference,

970: one can quantify the {\it degree of dilution} for a galaxy sample (G)

971: containing $N_{\rm CL}$ cluster galaxies and $N_{\rm BG}$

972: background galaxies

973: in terms of the strengths of the averaged tangential shear signal

974: $\langle g_+(\theta)\rangle$

975: as (Medezinski et al. 2007) 

976: \begin{equation}

977: 1+\delta_d(\theta) \equiv \frac{N_{\rm BG}+N_{\rm CL}}{N_{\rm BG}}

978: =\frac{\langle g_+^{(B)}(\theta)\rangle}

979:       {\langle g_+^{(G)}(\theta)\rangle}

980:  \frac{\langle D_{ds}/D_s\rangle^{(G)}_{z_s>z_d}}

981:       {\langle D_{ds}/D_s\rangle^{(B)}_{z_s>z_d}},

982: \end{equation}

983: where  $\langle D_{ds}/D_s\rangle_{z_s>z_d}$'s are 

984: averaged distance ratios 

985: for respective background populations;

986: if the two samples contain the same

987: background population, then 

988: $\delta_d = 

989: \langle g_+^{(B)}\rangle/\langle g_+^{(G)}\rangle-1$.

990: %%%

991: The degree of dilution thus varies depending on the radius from

992: the cluster center,  increasing towards the cluster center.

993: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

994: Medezinski et al. (2007) found 

995: for their {\it green} galaxy sample

996:  ($[V-i']_{E/S0-0.3}^{+0.1}$) containing

997: the cluster sequence galaxies in A1689

998: that the fraction of cluster membership,

999: $N_{\rm CL}/(N_{\rm BG}+N_{\rm CL})$,

1000: tends $\sim 100\%$ within $\theta \simlt 2'$.

1001: 

1002: 

1003: 

1004: %%%%%

1005: For our weak lensing distortion analysis

1006: we define a sample of {\it red background galaxies}

1007: whose colors are redder due to large $k$-corrections than

1008: %% @@ edited by KU (2008/02/18)

1009: %% the color-magnitude (CM) sequence of cluster member galaxies.

1010: the CM relation, or red sequence, of cluster member galaxies.

1011: These red background galaxies are largely composed of early to mid-type

1012: galaxies at moderate redshifts (Medezinski et al. 2007). 

1013: %%%%

1014: Cluster member

1015: galaxies are not expected to extend to these colors in any significant

1016: numbers because the intrinsically reddest class of cluster galaxies,

1017: %% @@ edited by KU (2008/02/18)

1018: %% i.e. E/S0 galaxies, are defined by the CM sequence and lie blueward

1019: %% of

1020: i.e. E/S0 galaxies, are defined by the red sequence and lie blueward of

1021: chosen sample limit, so that even large photometric errors will not 

1022: carry them into our red sample.

1023: %%%% @@ KU (2008/03/29)

1024: This can be demonstrated readily, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:dilution},  

1025: where we plot the mean tangential shear strength $\langle g_+ \rangle$,

1026: averaged over a wide radial range of $1\arcmin < \theta < 18\arcmin$,

1027: %%the central $10\arcmin$ region ($1\arcmin < \theta < 10\arcmin$) as

1028: as a function of color limit

1029: by changing the lower color limit progressively blueward.

1030: Here we do not apply area weighting to enhance the effect of dilution in

1031: the central region.

1032: %, finding a sharp drop in the lensing signal 

1033: %at our limit, $(V-i')<(V-i')_{E/S0}+\Delta(V-i')$

1034: %when the cluster red sequence starts to

1035: %contribute significantly, thereby reducing the mean lensing signal.

1036: %%%

1037: We take the lower (bluer) color limit of $+0.22$ mag 

1038: where the cluster contribution is negligible, 

1039: %and the upper color limit of $6$ to include the

1040: %majority of the background red population,

1041: defining the red background sample by

1042: $\Delta(V-i')\equiv (V-i')-(V-i')_{E/S0}  > 0.22$, 

1043: as adopted by B05a.

1044: Figure \ref{fig:dilution} shows a sharp drop in the

1045: lensing signal at $\Delta(V-i') \simlt 0.1$,

1046: when the cluster red sequence starts to contribute significantly,

1047: thereby reducing the mean lensing signal.

1048: At $\Delta(V-i')\simgt 0.1$,

1049: the mean lensing signal of the red background

1050: stays fairly constant, $\langle g_+ \rangle \simeq 0.143$,

1051: ensuring that our weak lensing measurements 

1052: are not sensitive to this particular choice of the color limit

1053: (see \S \ref{subsec:sys}).

1054: %%%%

1055: Similarly, on the left of Figure \ref{fig:dilution}, we show the mean

1056: distortion strength for our blue galaxy sample with the magnitude

1057: limit in the interval $23 < i' < 25.5$, so as to take only faint blue

1058: galaxies. The lower color limit is set to $\Delta(V-i')>-1.5$.

1059: For galaxies with colors bluer than the

1060: cluster sequence,  cluster galaxies are present along

1061: with background 

1062: galaxies, since the cluster population extends to bluer colors

1063: of the later type members.

1064: Consequently, the mean lensing signal of the blue sample

1065: is systematically lower than that of the red sample, unless we take the

1066: upper (redder) color limit around $\Delta(V-i')\sim 0.7$ where, however,

1067: the distortion measurement is quite noisy (Figure \ref{fig:dilution}).

1068: We therefore exclude blue galaxies from our weak lensing analysis.

1069: Note that 

1070: the background populations do not need to be complete

1071: in any sense but should simply be well defined and contain only

1072: background.

1073: %%%

1074: This color-magnitude selection criteria yielded a total of 

1075: $N_g= 5728$ galaxies, or the mean surface number density of

1076: $\bar{n}_g=7.6$ galaxies arcmin$^{-2}$.

1077: For the red background sample, we found

1078: %the mean variance $\bar{\sigma}_g^2$ 

1079: %over the red galaxy sample is obtained as

1080: $\overline{\sigma_g^2}\simeq 0.133$, or 

1081: $\sqrt{\overline{\sigma_g^2}}\approx 0.36$, which is slightly 

1082: smaller than the rms dispersion for the $i'$-selected galaxy sample.

1083:  

1084:  

1085: We need to estimate the depths of our color-magnitude selected 

1086: red samples when measuring the cluster mass profile, 

1087: because the lensing signal depends on the source redshifts in proportion

1088: to $D_{ds}/D_s$.

1089: %%%%%

1090: Medezinski et al. (2007) utilized the multicolor 

1091: photometry of Capak et al. (2004)

1092: based on Subaru $UBVRIZ$ imaging covering $0.2$ deg$^2$, and 

1093: estimated

1094: photometric redshifts for color-magnitude 

1095: selected background galaxy samples.

1096: %%%%

1097: Using the Capak et al.'s photometric redshift distributions,

1098: Medezinski et al. (2007) estimated a mean redshift for the red

1099: background with $i'>18$ mag to be 

1100: $\bar{z}_s \approx 0.87$ at fainter magnitude limits of $i'=26$--$27$,

1101: and also calculated weighted mean lensing depths $\langle

1102: D_{ds}/D_s\rangle$ for respective background populations as a function

1103: of apparent $i'$ limiting magnitude, and found that the averaged

1104: distance ratio $\langle D_{ds}/D_s\rangle$ grows only slowly with

1105: increasing apparent magnitude limit: 

1106: $\langle D_{ds}/D_s \rangle =  0.693 \pm 0.02$ for 

1107: the red sample with $i'_{\rm cut}=25.5$--$26.5$

1108: (see Figure 9 of Medezinski et al. 2007),

1109: and the corresponding redshift equivalent to this mean distance is

1110: $z_{s,D}=0.68 \pm 0.05$, where the distance-equivalent redshift $z_{s,D}$ is

1111: defined by the following equation:

1112: \begin{equation}

1113: \label{eq:zD}

1114: \bigg\langle \frac{D_{ds}}{D_s} \bigg\rangle_{z_s} =

1115:  \frac{D_{ds}}{D_s}\bigg|_{z_s=z_{s,D}}.

1116: \end{equation}

1117: %%%

1118: Therefore, we can safely assume that our two different red samples for

1119: the distortion and magnification measurements (with $i'_{\rm cut}=26.0$

1120: and $25.5$, respectively) have nearly the same depths. 

1121: %%%

1122: We note that B05a assumed that all of the background galaxies are

1123: located at a single redshift of $z_s=1$, corresponding to

1124: $D_{ds}/D_s=0.772$, which underestimates $\Sigma_{\rm crit}$ by

1125: $\sim 11\%$ 

1126: %%%($0.772/0.693=1.11$),

1127: and hence underestimates the cluster mass accordingly.

1128: %%%%

1129: We will come back to this issue in \S \ref{subsec:sys}.

1130: 

1131: 

1132: 

1133: \section{Weak Lensing Map-making}

1134: \label{sec:map}

1135: 

1136: This section describes a maximum entropy method (MEM) for reconstructing  

1137: the two-dimensional cluster mass distribution from combined shape

1138: distortion and magnification bias observations. 

1139: 

1140: As described above (see \S \ref{subsec:red}), only the red selected

1141: background is used for the measurement of the lens distortion and

1142: magnification, in order to minimize the effect of dilution.

1143: 

1144: 

1145: \subsection{Shape Distortion Data}

1146: \label{subsec:distortion}

1147: 

1148: For map-making,

1149: we pixelize the distortion data into a regular grid

1150: of $N_{\rm data} = 21\times 17 = 357$ independent pixels

1151: covering a field of $\approx 30'\times 24'$.

1152: %%%

1153: The pixel size is set to 

1154: $\Delta_{\rm pix}=1\farcm 4$, 

1155: and the mean

1156: galaxy counts per pixel is $\bar{n}_g\Delta\Omega_{\rm pix} \sim  15$

1157: with $\Delta\Omega_{\rm pix}=\Delta_{\rm pix}^2$ being

1158: the solid angle per pixel.

1159: 

1160: We compute an estimate $\tilde g_{\alpha}(\btheta_i)$ for the reduced

1161: shear $g_{\alpha}(\btheta_i)$ on a regular grid of cells

1162: ($i=1,2,...,N_{\rm pix}$) as

1163: \begin{equation}

1164: \label{eq:bin_shear} 

1165: \tilde g_{\alpha}(\btheta_i)

1166: =

1167: \sum_{k\in {\rm cell} i} u_k g_{\alpha,k}

1168: \Big/

1169: \sum_{k\in {\rm cell} i} u_k

1170: \equiv \tilde{g}_{\alpha,i},

1171: \end{equation}

1172: where  

1173: $g_{\alpha,k}$ is a noisy estimate of the $\alpha$th component of the

1174: reduced shear for the $k$th galaxy, and 

1175: $u_k=1/\sigma_{g,k}^2$ is its inverse-variance weight

1176: (see \S \ref{subsec:shear}).

1177: %%%

1178: The error covariance matrix

1179: for the pixelized reduced shear

1180: $\tilde{g}=\tilde{g}_1+i\tilde{g}_2$ 

1181: (\ref{eq:bin_shear}) is then 

1182: diagonal, and

1183: given by

1184: \begin{equation}

1185: \langle 

1186: \Delta\tilde{g}_{\alpha,i}\Delta\tilde{g}_{\beta,j}

1187: \rangle

1188: =

1189: \frac{1}{2}

1190: \sigma^2_{\tilde{g},i}

1191: \delta_{\alpha\beta}

1192: \delta_{ij},

1193: \end{equation}

1194: %where $\delta_{ij}$ is the Kronecker's delta, and

1195: where $\sigma^2_{\tilde{g}, j}$ is the error variance for the $j$th

1196: pixel defined as

1197: \begin{equation}

1198: \label{eq:bin_shearvar}

1199: \sigma^2_{\tilde{g}}(\btheta_j) = 

1200: %\frac{\sum_{k\in {\rm cell} j} u_{k}^2 \sigma^2_{g,k}}

1201: \frac{1}

1202: %{ \left( 

1203:       {\sum_{k\in {\rm cell} j} u_{k}}.

1204: % \right)^2}.

1205: \end{equation} 

1206: Here we have used $\langle \Delta g_{\alpha,k}\Delta g_{\beta,l}

1207: \rangle = (1/2)\sigma^2_{g,k} \delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta_{kl}$

1208: for individual shear estimates $g_{\alpha,k}$.

1209: %%%%

1210: The per-pixel rms dispersion for $\tilde{g}(\btheta)$

1211: is then reduced down to $\sqrt{\overline{\sigma^2_g}/N}

1212: \sim 0.36/\sqrt{15}\sim 0.092$.

1213: 

1214: 

1215: %%%%

1216: In Figure \ref{fig:shear} we show the reduced-shear field 

1217: obtained from the red galaxy sample, where for visualization purposes

1218: the $\tilde{g}_{\alpha}(\btheta)$ is resampled on to a finer grid and

1219: smoothed with a Gaussian with ${\rm FWHM}=2'$.

1220: A coherent tangential shear pattern is clearly seen 

1221: in Figure \ref{fig:shear} around the cluster center.

1222: 

1223:  

1224: \subsection{Magnification Bias Data}

1225: \label{subsec:mag}

1226: 

1227: %The magnification bias arises because gravitational lensing changes the

1228: %apparent solid angle of the background but conserves the surface

1229: %brightness, which influences the observed surface density of

1230: %background sources, 

1231: Lensing magnification, $\mu(\btheta)$, influences the observed

1232: surface density of background sources, expanding the area of

1233: sky, and enhancing the observed flux of background sources.

1234: In the subcritical regime 

1235: (Broadhurst, Taylor \& Peacock 1995; Umetsu et al. 1999),

1236: the magnification $\mu(\btheta)$ is given by equation (\ref{eq:mu}).

1237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1238: The count-in-cell statistic is measured from 

1239: the flux-limited red galaxy sample 

1240: (see \S \ref{subsec:data}) on the same grid as the distortion data:

1241: \begin{equation}

1242: \label{eq:cic}

1243: \tilde{N}(<m_{\rm cut}; \btheta_i) = \sum_{k\in {\rm cell} i}1

1244: \equiv \tilde{N}_i

1245: \end{equation}

1246: with $m_{\rm cut}$ being the magnitude cutoff corresponding to the

1247: flux-limit ($i'_{\rm cut}=25.5$).

1248: %%%

1249: The normalization and slope of the unlensed number counts

1250: $N_0(<m_{\rm cut})$ for our red galaxy sample are reliably estimated as 

1251: $n_{\mu,0}=12.6\pm 0.23$ arcmin$^{-2}$ and 

1252: $s\equiv d\log{N_0(m)}/dm=0.22\pm 0.03$

1253: from the outer region $\ge 10'$ (B05a).

1254: %%%

1255: The mean galaxy counts per pixel is thus 

1256: $N_0 = n_{\mu,0}\Delta\Omega_{\rm pix}\sim 25$.

1257: %%%

1258: The magnification bias at the $i$th cell is then estimated as

1259: $1+\tilde\delta_{\mu,i} = 

1260: \tilde{n}_{\mu}/n_{\mu,0}

1261: =

1262: \tilde{N}_i/N_0$,

1263: with $\tilde n_{\mu,i}=\tilde N_{\mu,i} / \Delta\Omega_{\rm pix}$,

1264: where the dilution effect $\delta_d$ is negligible for our

1265: red-background

1266: sample; otherwise $\tilde N_i/N_0 = 1+\tilde{\delta}_\mu+\tilde{\delta}_d$.

1267: %%%

1268: The slope is less than the lensing invariant slope, $s=0.4$, 

1269: and hence a net deficit of background galaxies is expected:

1270: \begin{equation} 

1271: \label{eq:magbias}

1272: \delta_{\mu}(\btheta) \equiv \langle \tilde\delta_{\mu}(\btheta)\rangle 

1273: = \mu_i^{2.5s-1}(\btheta)-1

1274: \end{equation}

1275: (Broadhurst et al. 1995; B05a).

1276: %%%%

1277: In the limit of weak lensing 

1278: where $\kappa,|\gamma|\ll 1$, 

1279: $\delta_{\mu}(\btheta) \simeq (5s-2) \kappa(\btheta)

1280: \simeq -0.9\kappa(\btheta)$ with $s=0.22$.  

1281: %%%

1282: %%%

1283: 

1284: 

1285: The masking effect due to bright cluster galaxies and bright

1286: foreground objects is properly taken into

1287: account and corrected for (B05a).

1288: %%%%

1289: We conservatively account for the masking of observed sky

1290: by excluding a generous area $\pi a b$ around each masking object, where

1291: $a$ and $b$ are defined as $\nu_{\rm mask}\equiv 3$ times 

1292: the major ({\tt A\_IMAGE}) and minor axes ({\tt B\_IMAGE}) computed

1293: from SExtractor, corresponding roughly

1294: to the isophotal detection limit in our configuration

1295: (see \S \ref{subsec:data}). 

1296: %%%

1297: We calculate the correction factor for this masking effect

1298: as a function of radius from the cluster center, 

1299: and renormalize the number density of each cell accordingly.

1300: %%%%

1301: The masking area is negligible at large radii, and increases up to

1302: $\sim 20\%$ of the sky close to the cluster center, $\theta\simlt 3'$.

1303: %%%

1304: B05a showed that

1305: the magnification bias measurements with and without the masking

1306: correction are roughly consistent with each other, and with the NFW

1307: prediction from  the ACS strong lensing observations (B05b)

1308: and the Subaru distortion profile (see Figure 2 of B05a), 

1309: even though all the measurements have different

1310: systematics. 

1311: Note that if we use the masking factor $\nu_{\rm mask}$ of $2$ or $4$,

1312: instead of 3, 

1313: the results shown below remain almost unchanged (see \S \ref{subsec:sys}

1314: for more details). 

1315: %%%%

1316: %We found that 

1317: %the results are little

1318: %changed when the masking factor of 2 or 4 are adopted instead of 3.

1319: %The magnificaiton-bias map is displayed in Figure \ref{fig:magbias}.

1320: %%%%

1321: 

1322: 

1323: Figure \ref{fig:magbias} shows the resulting magnification-bias

1324: distribution

1325: derived from the red galaxy sample based on the SExtractor

1326: photometry (\S \ref{subsec:data}). 

1327: %%%

1328: A clear depletion of the red galaxy

1329: counts is visible in the central, high-density region of the cluster.

1330: %%% :: Keiichi's original ::

1331: %A clear depletion of the red galaxy

1332: %counts is seen in the central, high-density region of the cluster.

1333: %%%

1334: On the other hand, 

1335: it has been argued that estimates of the lensing magnification 

1336: based on number counts suffer from noise 

1337: arising from the intrinsic clustering of the source galaxies

1338: (e.g., Zhang \& Pen 2006).

1339: Indeed,

1340: some

1341: variance is apparent in the spatial distribution of red galaxies.

1342: In particular, a local enhancement 

1343: %$n_{\mu}/n_0\sim 1.5$

1344: of red background galaxies

1345: can be seen in Figure \ref{fig:magbias} around $\btheta \sim (0',5')$,

1346: having an overdensity of $\tilde n_{\mu}/n_0 \sim 1.5$.

1347: This may explain the discrepant point at $\theta\sim 5'$ in the

1348: magnification bias profile of B05a.

1349: %Estimates of the lensing magnification 

1350: %based on number counts suffer from noise 

1351: %arising from the intrinsic clustering of the source galaxies,

1352: %To overcome this intrinsic clustering problem

1353: %we wil

1354: %intrinsic clustering signal is ..

1355: %Such an intrinsic clustering signal of red galaxies ...

1356: %must be unweighted

1357: We will come back to this issue later in \S \ref{subsec:declustering}.

1358: %%%%

1359: %Indeed, in the one dimensional analysis of 

1360: %Broadhurst et al. (2005b), we found a discrepant point at $\theta\sim

1361: %5'$ in the magnification-bias profile (Figure 2 of Broadhurst et

1362: %al. 2005b). 

1363: 

1364: 

1365: 

1366: \subsection{Maximum Entropy Mass Reconstruction Method}

1367: \label{subsec:massrec}

1368:  

1369: The relation between distortion and convergence is non-local, and

1370: the convergence $\kappa$ derived from distortion data alone suffers from

1371: a mass sheet degeneracy (see \S \ref{sec:wl}). 

1372: However, by combining the distortion and magnification measurements the

1373: convergence can be obtained unambiguously with the correct mass

1374: normalization.  

1375: %%%%

1376: 

1377: Here we combine pixelized distortion and depletion data of red

1378: background galaxies in a maximum likelihood sense, and reconstruct the

1379: two-dimensional distribution of the lensing convergence field,

1380: $\kappa(\btheta)$. 

1381: %%%

1382: Several authors have proposed maximum likelihood and maximum entropy

1383: methods for reconstructing the projected mass distribution from 

1384: joint weak lensing observations of the shape distortion and

1385: magnification bias effects (Bartelmann 1995; Seitz, Schneider, \&

1386: Bartelmann 1998; Bridle et al. 1998; Umetsu et al. 2007). 

1387: %%%

1388: In the present study, we utilize a maximum entropy method 

1389: extended to account for positive/negative distributions of the

1390: underlying field starting with the method proposed in the context of 

1391: interferometric observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)

1392: radiation by Maisinger, Hobson, \& Lasenby (1997) and Hobson \& Lasenby

1393: (1998). 

1394: 

1395: 

1396: Bayes' theorem states that given a hypothesis $H$ and some data $D$ the 

1397: posterior probability ${\rm Pr}(H|D)$ is the product of of the

1398: likelihood ${\rm Pr}(D|H)$ and the prior probability  ${\rm Pr}(H)$,

1399: with a proper normalization by the evidence ${\rm Pr}(D)$ (Maisinger et

1400: al. 1997):

1401: \begin{equation}

1402: \label{eq:bayes}

1403: {\rm Pr}(H|D) = \frac{{\rm Pr}(H)\, {\rm Pr}(D|H)}{{\rm Pr}(D)}.

1404: \end{equation}

1405: In the context of map-making, the hypothesis $H$ is taken as the

1406: pixelized image  ${\bf p}=\{p_i\}$ ($i=1,2,...,N_{\rm pix}$).

1407: Since the evidence in Bayes' theorem is a normalization constant for a

1408: given dataset $D$, we maximize ${\rm Pr}({\bf p}|D)\propto {\rm

1409: Pr}({\bf p})\, 

1410: {\rm Pr}(D|{\bf p})$ with respect to ${\bf p}$.

1411: We assume that the errors on the data follow a Gaussian distribution, so

1412: that the likelihood is given as ${\rm Pr}(D|{\bf p})\propto

1413: \exp\left[-\chi^2({\bf p})/2\right]$, with $\chi^2$ being the standard

1414: misfit statistic. Then, for a given form of the entropy function $S({\bf

1415: p}, {\bf m})$, the entropic prior is written as

1416: \begin{equation}

1417: \label{eq:entropy}

1418: {\rm Pr}({\bf p}) \propto 

1419: \exp\left[\alpha S({\bf p},{\bf m})\right],

1420: \end{equation}

1421: where ${\bf m} = \{m_i\}$ ($i=1,2,...,N_{\rm pix}$)

1422: is a set of model parameters for the pixelized image, ${\bf p}$.

1423: We follow the prescription given in Maisinger et al. (1997) and Hobson \&

1424: Lasenby (1998), and define the cross-entropy function for ${\bf p}$ as

1425: %the cross-entropy function for a pixelized {\it image} ${\bf p}=\{p_i\}$

1426: %($i=1,2,...,N_{\rm pix}$) is written in discretized form as (Maisinger

1427: %et al. 1997; Hobson \& Lasenby 1998)

1428: \begin{equation}

1429: S({\bf p}, {\bf m}) = 

1430: \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm pix}}\left[

1431: \psi_i -2m_i-p_i\ln\left(

1432: \frac{\psi_i+p_i}{2m_i}

1433: \right)

1434: \right],

1435: \end{equation}

1436: where $\psi_i\equiv \sqrt{p_i^2+4m_i^2}$.

1437: %and ${\bf m}=\{m_i\}$  ($i=1,2,...,N_{\rm pix}$)

1438: %is a set of model parameters for ${\bf p}$.

1439: %%%

1440: We take $p_i = \kappa_i\equiv \kappa(\btheta_i)$ 

1441: as the image to be reconstructed,

1442: and express a set of discretized $\kappa$-values as 

1443: ${\bf p}=\{\kappa_i\}$ $(i=1,2,...,N_{\rm pix})$.

1444: %%%%

1445: In general, an entropy regularization 

1446: helps to reduce the sensitivity of the least $\chi^2$

1447: solutions to small-scale noise in data, by imposing 

1448: smoothness constraints on the solutions.

1449: %%%%

1450: This MEM prior ensures that

1451: $\kappa(\btheta) \to 0$ in the noise-dominated regime,

1452: or low-density regions in the outskirts of the cluster.

1453: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1454: Note that unlike conventional MEM functions, this MEM prior is free from

1455: the ``positive bias''  in the reconstructed image ($= {\rm signal} +

1456: {\rm residual \ noise}$), and this bias is more significant in the low

1457: signal-to-noise ratio, or low density regions ($r\to r_{\rm vir}$) where

1458: we are interested in measuring $\kappa$.

1459: 

1460: 

1461: 

1462: 

1463: %%%%

1464: We take into account the non-linear, but subcritical, regime of the

1465: lensing properties, $\kappa$ and $\gamma_{\alpha}$,

1466: for a MEM mass reconstruction (see Bridle et al. 1998).

1467: We use equations (\ref{eq:gamma2kappa}) and (\ref{eq:kappa2gamma})

1468: to relate the gravitational shear and the convergence fields, 

1469: $\gamma$ and $\kappa$.

1470: %%%%

1471: %%%%

1472: The log posterior probability function,

1473: $F({\bf p}) = -\ln{{\rm Pr}({\bf p}|D)}$, is then expressed as a linear

1474: sum of the shear/magnification data log-likelihoods (Schneider, King, \&

1475: Erben 2000) and the entropy term (Maisinger et al. 1997): 

1476: \begin{eqnarray}

1477: \label{eq:loglikelihood}

1478: F({\bf p})& = &

1479: \frac{1}{2} \chi^2({\bf p})

1480: %\left[

1481: %\chi^2_g({\bf p}) 

1482: %+

1483: %\chi^2_\mu({\bf p})

1484: %\right]

1485: - \alpha S({\bf p}, {\bf m}),\\

1486: \chi^2({\bf p}) &=& \chi^2_g({\bf p}) + \chi^2_\mu({\bf p})\\

1487: %%

1488: \chi^2_g &\equiv& 

1489: \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm pix}}

1490: \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2} 

1491: \frac{ [\tilde{g}_{\alpha,i}-g_{\alpha,i}({\bf p}) ]^2 } {

1492: \sigma_{\tilde{g}_\alpha,i}^2 },\\

1493: %%  

1494: \chi^2_\mu &\equiv& 

1495: \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\rm pix}}

1496: \frac{ [\tilde{N}_{i}-N_{i}({\bf p})]^2} {\tilde N_i},

1497: \end{eqnarray}

1498: where $\alpha (>0)$ is the dimensionless regularization constant, and

1499: $\sigma_{\tilde{g}_{\alpha,i}}$ is the per-component rms error

1500: for the pixelized distortion measurement ($\alpha=1,2$),

1501: $\sigma_{\tilde{g}_{1,i}} =\sigma_{\tilde{g}_{2,i}} =

1502: \sigma_{\tilde{g},i}/\sqrt{2}$;   

1503: %%%%%

1504: $g_{\alpha,i}({\bf p})$ (equation [\ref{eq:redshear}])

1505: and  $N_i({\bf p}) = \mu_i({\bf p})^{2.5s-1} N_0$

1506: %n_{\mu,0}\Delta\Omega_{{\rm pix},i}$

1507: are the theoretical expectations for 

1508: $\tilde{g}_{\alpha,i}$ and $\tilde{N}_i$, respectively,

1509: where $\Delta\Omega_{{\rm pix},i}$ is the effective observed area

1510: of the $i$th pixel excluding the masking area by the cluster members. 

1511: %%%%%%%

1512: %In defining the magnification bias likelihood function $l_\mu$,

1513: In defining $\chi^2_\mu$,

1514: we have used the Gaussian approximation for the 

1515: Poisson distribution 

1516: of count-in-cell statistics 

1517: ($N_0 \sim 25$),

1518: as done in the one-dimensional analysis by B05a.

1519: %%%

1520: We also note that the dispersion for $\tilde{g}$

1521: is modified as $\sigma[\tilde g(\btheta)] \approx \sigma_{\tilde

1522: g}(1-|g({\bf p})|^2)$ in the subcritical, non-linear regime (Schneider

1523: et al. 2000);  however, we neglect this non-linear correction for the

1524: dispersion $\sigma_{\tilde g}$ to simplify various calculations, as in

1525: B05a.  

1526: %%%% 

1527: We found these are indeed good approximations for our combined

1528: distortion and depletion datasets, and the results presented here

1529: are little changed when the full likelihood function is used.

1530: %%

1531: %%

1532: 

1533: 

1534: The maximum likelihood solution, $\hat{\bf p}$,

1535: is obtained by minimizing

1536: the function $F({\bf p})$ with respect to ${\bf p}$

1537: for given $\alpha$ and ${\bf m}$. 

1538: %%%%%

1539: To do this,

1540: we compute numerically the

1541: derivatives $\partial F({\bf{p}})/\partial p_i$ using a

1542: conjugate-gradient algorithm (Press et al. 1992).

1543: %%%

1544: %We take $m_i={\rm const}\equiv m$, 

1545: We determine by iteration

1546: the Bayesian value of $\alpha=\hat{\alpha}(\hat{\bf p}, {\bf m})$ 

1547: by the following equation

1548: (Bridle et al. 1998):

1549: %for a given value of $m$. 

1550: \begin{equation}

1551: \label{eq:alpha}

1552: -2\hat\alpha S(\hat{\bf p},{\bf m}) =  N_{\rm pix} - \hat\alpha {\rm Tr}({\bf

1553:  M}^{-1}) \, \equiv N_{\rm good},

1554: \end{equation}

1555: where ${\bf M}$ is a $N_{\rm pix}\times N_{\rm pix}$ matrix defined by

1556: \begin{equation}

1557: {\bf M} = {\bf G}^{-1/2} {\bf H} {\bf G}^{-1/2},

1558: \end{equation}

1559: with

1560: \begin{eqnarray}

1561: H_{ij}(\hat{\bf p})&=&\frac{\partial^2 F({\bf p})}

1562: {\partial p_i \partial p_j}\bigg|_{{\bf p}=\hat{\bf p}},\\

1563: G_{ij}(\hat{\bf p}) &=& \frac{\partial^2 S({\bf p})}

1564: {\partial p_i \partial p_j}\bigg|_{{\bf p}=\hat{\bf p}},

1565: \end{eqnarray}

1566: evaluated at ${\bf p}=\hat{\bf p}$; 

1567: $N_{\rm good}$ is a measure of the

1568: effective number of parameters (Suyu et al. 2006).

1569: With the optimal $\alpha$, we thus expect that 

1570: the final value of the misfit statistic $\chi^2$ is close to the {\it

1571: classical number of degrees of freedom} (hereafter NDF, see Suyu et

1572: al. 2006), ${\rm NDF} \equiv N_{\rm data} - N_{\rm good}$ (classic MEM).  

1573: We take $m_i={\rm const}\equiv m$, 

1574: where

1575: $m$ can be regarded as a characteristic amplitude 

1576: of the image (Maisinger et al. 1997).

1577: %%%%

1578: %%%%

1579: We find that 

1580: the maximum-likelihood solution $\hat{\bf p}$

1581: for the Bayesian $\hat\alpha$ 

1582: is insensitive to the choice of $m$ (see \S \ref{subsec:sys}). 

1583: In the following we set $m$ to be $0.5$. 

1584: %%%

1585: In order to be able to 

1586: quantify the errors on the mass reconstruction we

1587: evaluate the Hessian matrix ${\bf H}$ of the function 

1588: $F({\bf p})$ at ${\bf p}=\hat{\bf p}$,

1589: %\begin{equation}

1590: %\label{eq:hess}

1591: %H_{ij}(\hat{\bf p})=\frac{\partial^2 F({\bf p})}

1592: %{\partial p_i \partial p_j}\bigg|_{{\bf p}=\hat{\bf p}},

1593: %\end{equation} 

1594: from which the covariance matrix 

1595: of the reconstructed $\kappa$ map is given by 

1596: %parameters ${\bf p}$ is given by

1597: \begin{equation}

1598:  C_{ij}

1599: \equiv \langle 

1600: \delta\kappa_i

1601: \delta\kappa_j 

1602: %(\kappa-\hat\kappa)_i

1603: %(\kappa-\hat\kappa)_j

1604: \rangle=

1605: (H)^{-1}_{ij}(\hat{\bf p}).

1606: \end{equation}

1607: %%%%

1608: 

1609: \subsection{Strong Lensing Constraints}

1610: \label{subsec:acs}

1611: 

1612: The map-making method described in \S \ref{subsec:massrec} 

1613: is only applicable to subcritical regions 

1614: lying outside of the critical curves (see Bartelmann \& Schneider 2001).

1615: Therefore, our Subaru distortion and depletion datasets cannot be used

1616: to constrain the cluster mass distribution in the strong lensing region

1617: within the tangential critical curve (see B05b).

1618: %%%%

1619: Instead, we can 

1620: pause quadratic constraints on such pixels

1621: to the total log-likelihood function

1622: based on strong lensing models as:

1623: \begin{equation}

1624:  F({\bf p})

1625: \to F({\bf p}) + \frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{i=1}^{N_c} 

1626: \left(\kappa-\kappa_{\rm c}\right)_i^2,

1627: \end{equation}

1628: where 

1629: $\kappa_{{\rm c}.i}$ is the constraint on $\kappa_i$ by strong lensing,

1630: $N_{\rm c}$ is the number of constraints, and $\beta$ is a large number

1631: without causing this external term to become singular to working precision.

1632: 

1633: 

1634: In the present pixelization scheme, there is one such pixel ($N_{\rm

1635: c}=1$) containing the strong lensing region for which the Einstein

1636: radius of $\theta_{\rm E}\simeq 43''$ corresponds to a mean redshift of

1637: $\bar z_s=0.87$ for our red background population (see \S

1638: \ref{subsec:red}). 

1639: To constrain the central $\kappa$ pixel, we utilized a mass model of

1640: A1689, which is well constrained by ACS strong lensing observations

1641: restricted to the central region $\simlt 2'$ (B05b).

1642: The central ACS-derived mass profile of B05b is best described by an NFW

1643: model with a virial mass $M_{\rm vir}=2.6\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}/h$ and a

1644: concentration $c_{\rm vir}=8.2$  having a scale radius of $r_s \equiv

1645: r_{\rm vir}/c_{\rm vir}=310 {\rm kpc}/h$ (B05b).

1646: With this NFW model, we find $\kappa_{\rm c} \approx 0.781 \pm 0.1$ at

1647: the central pixel of $\btheta\sim (0',0')$ for a reference source

1648: redshift of $z_s=1$, corresponding to $\kappa_{\rm c}\approx 0.700$ for

1649: our red background sample (\S \ref{subsec:red}). Hence, assuming $z_s=1$

1650: for the source redshift will overpredict the central density by a

1651: factor of $0.772/0.693\simeq 1.113$, which will affect slightly the

1652: overall amplitude of the reconstructed $\kappa$ map (see \S

1653: \ref{subsec:sys}).  

1654: 

1655: 

1656:  

1657: 

1658: 

1659: \subsection{Downweighting Intrinsic Clustering Contributions and Noisy

1660:   Measurements}

1661: \label{subsec:declustering}

1662: 

1663: In contrast to the shearing effect, the magnification bias

1664: is a local, direct measure of the lensing convergence,

1665: free from the mass-sheet degeneracy.

1666: However, a practical difficulty of the magnification bias measurement 

1667: is the intrinsic clustering contribution which locally can be larger 

1668: than the lensing induced signal in a given pixel.

1669: %% :: Keiichi's original ::

1670: %However, the practical difficulty of 

1671: %the magnification bias measurement is the intrinsic clustering

1672: %contribution which is usually larger than the lensing induced signal.

1673: In order to obtain a clean measure of the lensing signal,

1674: such intrinsic clustering needs to be eliminated.

1675: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1676: %% Zhang \& Pen (2005) 

1677: Broadhurst et al. (1995) proposed an active declustering method 

1678: based on the facts that 

1679: the magnification bias depends strongly on the shape of the luminosity

1680: function, whereas intrinsic clustering depends weakly on the

1681: intrinsic luminosity function,

1682: and that they have different redshift dependence 

1683: (see also Zhang \& Pen 2005). 

1684: %%%%

1685: This method however requires

1686: the addition of redshift information for

1687: %%% :: Keiichi's original ::

1688: %information of photometric redshifts as well as fluxes of 

1689: individual background galaxies. 

1690: Furthermore, the shape information of 

1691: luminosity functions for respective background populations must be

1692: provided in order to convert a density depletion or enhancement

1693: into the lens magnification, $\mu$.

1694: %Therefore, 

1695: %which enables us to 

1696: 

1697: Alternatively, one may employ prior information from, for example,

1698: the surface luminosity density of cluster member galaxies

1699: to predict the projected mass distribution,

1700: which is then used to 

1701: downweight intrinsic clustering contributions. 

1702: In the present study, we have adopted 

1703: an objective rejection scheme 

1704: based on the gravitational shear predictions, summarized in

1705: the following steps:

1706:  (1) Using shape distortion data alone

1707:   we derive an entropy-regularized

1708:   maximum likelihood solution $\bf{p}$ for the mass distribution.

1709:  (2) Then, the shear-based $\kappa$ map is used to predict

1710:   the magnification bias on the same grid of pixels.

1711:  (3) Finally, we make a pixel-to-pixel comparison between

1712:   the observed and predicted galaxy counts, and

1713:   reject those magnification measurements $\tilde N_i$

1714:   which are in conflict with

1715:   the shear-based predictions $N_i(\bf{p})$ as:

1716: \begin{equation}

1717: |\tilde N_i - N_i({\bf p})| > \nu_{\rm clust} \sqrt{N_0}

1718: \end{equation}

1719: where $N_0\sim 25$ is the unlensed, mean number counts of red galaxies,

1720: and $\nu_{\rm clust}$ is a rejection threshold in units of $\sigma$. We

1721: set a rejection threshold at $4\sigma$, i.e., $\nu_{\rm clust}=4$.

1722: %%%

1723: Changing this threshold will affect the details of the 

1724: reconstruction especially in the outer regions ($\theta \simgt

1725: 7\arcmin$).  

1726: However, we confirmed that changing the threshold $\nu_{\rm clust}$ by

1727: $\pm 1$ leaves our results unchanged within our statistical

1728: uncertainties (see 

1729: \S \ref{subsec:sys}), and that the resulting mass map is fairly

1730: consistent with the surface luminosity and density distributions of

1731: cluster member galaxies, as described in detail below.

1732: 

1733: 

1734: 

1735: 

1736: In addition to the above,

1737: in order to exclude unreliable measurements,

1738: we have assigned zero weight to those pixels which 

1739: satisfy either of the following rejection criteria:

1740: \begin{enumerate}

1741: \item Measurement pixel with no usable galaxy,

1742: \item Measurement pixel in the strong lensing region (\S \ref{subsec:acs}),

1743: %\item Magnification measurement rejected according to the shear-based

1744: %      prediction (\S \ref{subsec:declustering}),

1745: \item Magnification measurement near boundary regions 

1746:       with low

1747:       completeness at fainter magnitudes.

1748: \end{enumerate}

1749: 

1750: The last rejection criterion is 

1751: required since the slope of the unlensed number counts,

1752: $s = d\log{N_0(m)}/dm$, could depend on the selection completeness;

1753: such an apparent variation of the slope $s$ could give rise

1754: to additional errors in the mass reconstruction.

1755: 

1756: 

1757: \subsection{Map-making of A1689}

1758: \label{subsec:a1689map}

1759: 

1760: 

1761: We have applied our MEM method to the

1762: joint measurements of the shape distortion and magnification bias

1763: effects of red background galaxies 

1764: %combined shape distortion and magnification bias measurements

1765: in order to reconstruct the two-dimensional mass distribution of A1689.

1766: We utilized the FFTW implementation 

1767: %(Frigo \& Johnson 1998)

1768: of 

1769: Fast Fourier Transforms (FFTs) to convert between

1770: the lensing convergence and the gravitational shear fields

1771: using equations (\ref{eq:gamma2kappa}) and (\ref{eq:kappa2gamma}).

1772: The FFT however implies a periodicity in 

1773: both horizontal and vertical directions, 

1774: producing aliasing effects at the borders of the computational domain. 

1775: In order to avoid such aliasing effects, 

1776: we used large arrays of $31 \times 27$ pixels

1777: with $N_{\rm pix}=31\times 27=837$, 

1778: covering a field of $43\farcm 4\times 37\farcm 8$. 

1779: %%%

1780: On the other hand,

1781: the distortion and depletion measurements 

1782: are limited to the central $30'\times 24'$ region

1783: ($21\times 17=357$ pixels);

1784: the wide-field Subaru data thus allow us to probe the 

1785: projected mass distribution on scales ranging from

1786: $\theta\sim 1'$ up to $\theta\sim 20'$.

1787: %%%

1788: To minimize spurious effects from the periodic boundary

1789: condition,

1790: pixelized maps are further zero padded 

1791: by a factor of $2$ in each dimension 

1792: (Seljak 1998; Sato et al. 2003).

1793: %%% Seljak 1998, ApJ, 506, 64

1794: %%%%

1795: 

1796: 

1797: For the spin-2 distortion measurements, we have in total $N_{{\rm

1798: data},g}=2 \times 355 = 710$ usable (real) observations.

1799: %%%%%%

1800: For the magnification measurements,

1801: we have $N_{{\rm data},\mu}=302$ usable observations.

1802: %we discarded depletion measurements outside

1803: %the central $24'\times 24'$ region

1804: %we only used depletion data in the

1805: %central $24'\times 24'$ region, 

1806: %yielding a net number of $N_{{\rm data},\mu}=270$.

1807: %%%%%

1808: %The first reason for this masking is 

1809: %because, unlike the distortion signal,

1810: %the depletion signal measures the local surface mass density $\kappa$,

1811: %and hence falls rapidly with increasing radius.

1812: %Furthermore, 

1813: %Secondly,

1814: %local overdensities of  

1815: %red galaxies are apparent in the outer region

1816: %(Figure \ref{fig:magbias})

1817: %where the distortion signal is relatively weak; thus, this intrinsic

1818: %clustering of the red background could dominate over the lensing singal 

1819: %in such low density regions, and hence strongly affect the mass

1820: %reconstruction.  

1821: %%%%

1822: The total number of constraints is thus $N_{\rm data}=N_{{\rm

1823: data},g}+N_{{\rm data},\mu}=1012$, yielding $N_{\rm data}-N_{\rm

1824: pix}=175$ degrees of freedom (dof). 

1825: %%

1826: %%

1827: The Bayesian value of the regularization parameter $\hat{\alpha}$

1828: that satisfies equation (\ref{eq:alpha}) was obtained as 

1829: $\hat{\alpha}=96.6$, when $-2\hat\alpha S \approx N_{\rm pix} -

1830: \hat\alpha {\rm Tr}({\bf  M}^{-1}) \approx 213.1 (=N_{\rm good})$. 

1831: The minimum function value of $F$ was found to be 

1832: $F_{\rm min}=F(\hat{\bf p})=

1833: (1/2)\chi^2(\hat{\bf p})-\hat{\alpha}S(\hat{\bf p})

1834: = 651.2$, and $\chi^2(\hat{\bf p})= 1089.3$, 

1835: corresponding to ${\rm NDF} = N_{\rm data} - N_{\rm good} = 798.9$,

1836: i.e., $\chi^2(\hat{\bf p})/{\rm NDF} = 1.36$.

1837: Hence, the resulting $\chi^2$ is somewhat large, and is rather close to

1838: historic MEM, i.e., $\chi^2(\hat {\bf p}) \approx N_{\rm data}$.

1839: However, we note that our MEM mass reconstructions without the magnification

1840: data yield $\chi^2(\hat {\bf p})/{\rm NDF} \approx 1$ (see Table

1841: \ref{tab:memmethod}) as expected for classic MEM. Therefore, slightly

1842: large values of this misfit statistic using the magnification data could be

1843: attributed to the fact that the intrinsic clustering noise in the

1844: magnification measurements is not included in the likelihood

1845: calculation, underestimating the errors for the magnification measurements.

1846: 

1847: 

1848: 

1849: 

1850: In the left panel of 

1851: Figure \ref{fig:rawkappa} we show the resulting 

1852: $\kappa$ map

1853: on a grid of $31\times 27$ pixels reconstructed from 

1854: the combined distortion and depletion data with the ACS constraint

1855: on the mean value of $\kappa$ for the central pixel.

1856: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1857: The reconstructed spin-2 shear field ($\gamma[\hat{\bf p}]$)

1858: is overlayed up on the $\kappa$ map.

1859: The right panel in Figure \ref{fig:rawkappa} 

1860: shows the two-dimensional distribution of the   

1861: rms reconstruction error for $\kappa_i$, estimated from the diagonal

1862: part of the pixel-pixel covariance matrix of errors:

1863: $\sigma(\kappa_i) = C^{1/2}_{ii}({\bf \hat p})$. 

1864: %%%

1865: Figure \ref{fig:image} presents the contours of the reconstructed

1866: $\kappa$ map 

1867: superposed on the $V+i'$ pseudo-color image covering a field of

1868: $30'\times 25'$ around the cluster.

1869: Here,

1870: for visualization purposes,

1871: the $\kappa$ map is resampled on to a finer grid 

1872: and convolved with a Gaussian of ${\rm FWHM}=1\farcm 4$,

1873: corresponding to a physical resolution of ${\rm FWHM}\sim 180 {\rm

1874: kpc}/h$ at the cluster redshift.  

1875: %%%

1876: The projected mass distribution of the cluster is 

1877: smoothly varying and symmetric, with no significant substructure at 

1878: $r\simgt 100 {\rm kpc}/h$.

1879: %showing that mass and

1880: %light in A1689 are similarly distributed 

1881: %with a fairly round shape,

1882: %and concentrated around 

1883: %the cD galaxy.

1884: %We note that brightest cluster galxies tend to deviate from the

1885: %linear CM relation, so that we visually checked if such brightest

1886: %cluster

1887: %galaxies were properly included in our cluster member sample, and

1888: %included them if they were missing.

1889: %A field correction is applied to the measured luminosity and number

1890: %densities of cluster galaxies to account for contamination by field

1891: %galaxies.  We estimate the background luminosity/number 

1892: %density level from an annular

1893: %region outside of the cluster region ($r\simgt r_{\rm vir}$), and then

1894: %subtract this background contribution from the observed

1895: %luminosity/number density of the cluster.

1896: %%

1897: Figure \ref{fig:lmap} compares the reconstructed lensing fields 

1898: and the member galaxy distributions in A1689, Gaussian smoothed

1899: to  a resolution of ${\rm FWHM}=2'$.

1900: %%%%

1901: The top panels show the reconstructed $\kappa$ 

1902: and the magnification-bias $\delta_\mu=\mu^{2.5s-1}-1$ 

1903: fields in the left and right panels, respectively.

1904: %%%

1905: The bottom left and right panels display the field-corrected

1906: $i'$-band luminosity and number density maps, respectively,

1907: of bright red-sequence galaxies with $i'<23$ mag.

1908: %where the background density levels are estimated from an

1909: %annular region 

1910: %$15'\simlt \theta \simlt 20'$

1911: %outside of the cluster region;

1912: %Overlayed up on the images are the mass contours shwon in the top-left

1913: %panel. 

1914: For each panel the color scale is linear, and 

1915: ranges from $0\%$--$100\%$ of the peak value.

1916: %A field correction is applied to the measured luminosity and number

1917: %densities of cluster galaxies to account for contamination by field

1918: %galaixes. 

1919: It is clear from Figure \ref{fig:lmap}

1920: that mass and light in A1689 are similarly distributed

1921: with a fairly round shape, and well centered on the main cD galaxy.

1922: 

1923: 

1924: 

1925: \subsection{Mass Maps from Different Datasets and Boundary Conditions}

1926: \label{subsec:3mem}

1927: 

1928: Any mass reconstruction technique based on the shear information

1929: involves a non local process, meaning that one has to assume

1930: certain boundary conditions to convert the gravitational shear field,

1931: $\gamma(\btheta)$,into the lensing convergence field, $\kappa(\btheta)$

1932: (Bartelmann \& Schneider 2001; Umetsu et al. 1999).

1933: %%%

1934: If the data field is sufficiently large so as to ensure that

1935: projected mass fluctuations over the field average out,

1936: or that the mean convergence over the field is zero, then 

1937: one may simply use equation (\ref{eq:gamma2kappa}) to invert

1938: the observed shear field into the convergence field (Kaiser \& Squires

1939: 1993). 

1940: Or, if magnification data are available, then

1941: a combination of complementary shearing and magnification 

1942: information can be used to break the degeneracy between

1943: the observables and the underlying gravitational potential field 

1944: (Bartelmann 1995; Seitz et al. 1998).

1945: Besides, strong lensing observations,

1946: if available, will place additional, tight constraints on the

1947: central mass distribution of the cluster where weak lensing

1948: alone cannot constrain (e.g., mass reconstruction of A370 in 

1949: Umetsu et al. 1999).

1950: 

1951: 

1952: Here we consider three sets of combinations of datasets and boundary

1953: conditions 

1954: as summarized in 

1955: Table \ref{tab:memmethod}: 

1956: (i) {\it 2D MEM+} method using 

1957: shear and magnification data with the central ACS constraint,

1958: (ii) {\it 2D MEM} method using shear and magnification data without the ACS

1959: constraint,

1960: (iii) {\it 2D MEM-S} method using shear data with the central ACS constraint.

1961: For each MEM reconstruction, we derive an

1962: entropy-regularized maximum likelihood solution for $\kappa$

1963: with the Bayesian value of $\alpha$.

1964: The resulting Bayesian value of $\alpha$ and the minimized 

1965: functional values of

1966: $F$ and $\chi^2$ are also listed in 

1967: Table \ref{tab:memmethod}.

1968: %%%%

1969: 

1970: 

1971: In order to quantify the significance of the reconstruction, 

1972: we define an estimator for the detection signal-to-noise

1973: ratio (S/N) by the following equation:

1974: \begin{equation}

1975: \label{eq:sn}

1976: \left({\rm S/N}\right)^2 \equiv

1977: \sum_{\kappa_i>0}\sum_{\kappa_j>0}

1978:  \kappa_i \kappa_j C^{-1}_{ij},

1979: \end{equation}

1980: where the indices $i$ and $j$ run over all pixels 

1981: except those with negative values of $\kappa$ 

1982: and those in the strong lensing region

1983: (see Table \ref{tab:memmethod}).

1984: The reconstructions based on 

1985: both the distortion and depletion data yield a similar

1986: S/N  of $\sim 18$--$19$, whereas  the reconstruction

1987: from the distortion data alone gives a slightly lower S/N of

1988: $\sim 15$ (see Table \ref{tab:memmethod}). 

1989: For comparison we quote the detection significance

1990: from the 1D Subaru analysis

1991: by B05a based on the same red background catalogs for

1992: the weak lensing distortion and depletion analyses:

1993: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1994: B05a measured the lens distortion and depletion profiles 

1995: over a radial range of $1'\simlt \theta \simlt 18'$.

1996: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1997: We find ${\rm S/N}\simeq 14.2$ and ${\rm S/N}\simeq 9.2$ for the 

1998: measurements of the 

1999: distortion and depletion profiles,

2000: respectively. 

2001: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2002: Since covariance between the distortion and magnification measurements

2003: can be neglected,

2004: the total S/N is simply obtained as

2005: $\sqrt{14.2^2+9.2^2} \sim 17$.

2006: %%%%%

2007: These numbers are quite comparable to those as measured from the

2008: reconstructed $\kappa$ field and its covariance matrix, 

2009: indicating that the lensing information contained in the 

2010: red catalogs is properly propagated into the $\kappa$-basis\footnote{

2011: This is not trivial since 

2012: the noise level in a MEM-reconstructed

2013: map is affected by the smoothness constraint specified by

2014: $\alpha$. Besides, 

2015: MEM is non-linear, so that the resulting reconstruction errors depend

2016: on the signal as well as noise properties.}.

2017: We find it important to use the Bayesian value for $\alpha$ in

2018: order to have an optimal smoothness for the mass reconstruction,

2019: avoiding oversmoothing.

2020: A more quantitative comparison between different reconstructions

2021: will be given in \S \ref{sec:massprofile}.

2022: 

2023: 

2024: 

2025:   

2026: 

2027: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2028: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2029:   

2030: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2031: 

2032: \section{Mass Profile of A1689}\label{sec:massprofile}

2033: 

2034: In this section, we aim to quantify and characterize 

2035: the projected mass distribution ($\kappa$) of A1689

2036: reconstructed from Subaru weak lensing observations,

2037: in order to derive quantitative constraints on the 

2038: three-dimensional mass distribution.

2039: Specifically,

2040: we will adopt the NFW density profile 

2041: $\rho(r)\propto r^{-1}(1+r/r_s)^{-2}$

2042: (Navarro et al. 1997) to describe the cluster mass distribution,  

2043: characterized by the virial mass $M_{\rm vir}$ and the concentration

2044: parameter $c_{\rm vir}=r_{\rm vir}/r_s$,

2045:  defined as the ratio of the

2046: virial radius $r_{\rm vir}$ to the scale radius $r_s$.

2047: The best-fitting NFW parameters $(M_{\rm vir},c_{\rm vir})$

2048: can be then compared with $\Lambda$CDM predictions 

2049: based on $N$-body simulations (Bullock et al. 2001; Neto et al. 2007).

2050: %%%

2051: As a test for the consistency and reliability, we will compare

2052: the best-fitting NFW parameters derived from different combinations of  

2053: datasets, boundary conditions, and weak lensing techniques.

2054: Here we introduce three different methods to 

2055: derive a convergence profile $\kappa(\theta)$ from weak lensing

2056: observations. 

2057: 

2058: 

2059: 

2060: 

2061: \subsection{Method (I): 2D Convergence Map}

2062: 

2063: 

2064: The first method makes a direct use of the 2D $\kappa$ map

2065: reconstructed by the entropy-regularized maximum likelihood method

2066: (\S \ref{sec:map}).

2067: The $\kappa$ map is directly compared with the model convergence field

2068: for an NFW spherical halo specified by two model parameters.

2069: %%%%

2070: We take 

2071: the virial mass $M_{\rm vir}$ and the concentration parameter 

2072: $c_{\rm vir}$

2073: %$c_{\rm vir}=r_{\rm vir}/r_s$, the ratio of the virial radius

2074: %$r_{\rm vir}$ to the scale radius $r_s$

2075: %evaluated at the clutser redshift 

2076: %($z_d=0.183$) 

2077: for describing an NFW halo. 

2078: We employ the radial dependence of the 

2079: convergence profile for the NFW model given by Bartelmann (1996).

2080: Note that the Bartelmann's

2081: formulae for the NFW convergence and shear profiles are obtained

2082: assuming the projection  integral to extend to infinity.

2083: Alternatively, a truncated NFW profile can be used to model the 

2084: convergence profile (Takada \& Jain 2003).

2085: We have confirmed that 

2086: the best-fitting NFW parameters obtained using 

2087: the above two different models agree to within $1\%$ 

2088: for the case of  A1689 lensing 

2089: (for detailed discussions,

2090: see Baltz, Marshall, \& Oguri 2007 and

2091: Hennawi et al. 2007). We thus simply use 

2092: Bartlemann's formulae to calculate the relevant

2093: lensing fields for an NFW halo

2094: as done in B05a and B05b.

2095: 

2096: 

2097: We constrain the two NFW parameters from $\chi^2$ fitting to the 

2098: 2D convergence map $\kappa(\btheta)$ derived from 

2099: Subaru weak lensing

2100: observations. We adopt a flat prior of $c_{\rm vir}\le 30$ for the 

2101: halo concentration because the NFW profiles with $c_{\rm vir} \simgt 20$

2102: cannot be distinguished by the Subaru data alone due to lack of

2103: information on the inner density profile (B05a).

2104: The $\chi^2$-function for the Subaru weak lensing observations,

2105: $\chi^2=\chi^2_{\rm WL}$,

2106:  can be expressed as

2107: (Oguri et al. 2005) 

2108: \begin{equation} 

2109: \label{eq:chi2_wl} 

2110: \chi^2_{\rm WL} = \sum_{i,j}

2111:  \left[\hat{\kappa}(\btheta_i)-\kappa(\btheta_i)\right]  

2112: \left(C^{-1}\right)_{ij} 

2113:  \left[\hat{\kappa}(\btheta_j)-\kappa(\btheta_j)\right],

2114: \end{equation}  

2115: where $\hat{\kappa}(\btheta_i)$ is the model prediction of the 

2116: NFW halo for the $i$th bin ($i=1,2,...,N_{\rm SL}$), 

2117: and $(C^{-1})_{ij}$ is the inverse of

2118: the pixel-pixel covariance matrix; $N_{\rm pix}=31\times 27=837$.

2119: In the model fitting 

2120: we exclude the central pixel

2121: in the strong lensing region

2122:  (see \S \ref{subsec:acs}).

2123: %%%%

2124: 

2125: 

2126: We have derived sets of best-fitting NFW parameters for

2127: the three different MEM reconstructions 

2128: listed in Table \ref{tab:memmethod}.

2129: %based on different combinations of datasets and boundary conditions.

2130: %%%%

2131: Table \ref{tab:nfwfit} shows a summary 

2132: of the best-fitting NFW parameters $(M_{\rm vir},c_{\rm vir})$

2133: %with $1\sigma$ uncertainties

2134:  and the resulting

2135: $\chi^2$ value for our Subaru weak lensing observations;

2136: %%%%

2137: the errors quote $68\%$ confidence intervals

2138: estimated from $\Delta\chi^2\equiv

2139: \chi^2-\chi^2_{\rm min}=1$ 

2140: in the $(c_{\rm vir}, M_{\rm vir})$-plane.

2141: %%%%

2142: Combining the distortion and magnification measurements

2143: with the central ACS constraint (MEM+)

2144: yields 

2145: the best-fitting NFW parameters,

2146: $M_{\rm vir}=(1.97\pm 0.20)\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$ and 

2147: $c_{\rm

2148: vir}= 13.4^{+5.4}_{-3.3}$,

2149: with $\chi^2_{\rm min}/{\rm dof}=332/834 (421)$,

2150: where the value in parentheses refers to an effective degrees of

2151: freedom excluding upper limit bins with $\kappa<0$.

2152: %%%

2153: As a test for the consistency, we compare 

2154: best-fit NFW parameters for the three MEM reconstructions 

2155: %based on different combinations of

2156: %datasets and boundary conditions

2157: described in \S \ref{subsec:3mem}. Firstly, all of the three MEM

2158: reconstructions yield 

2159: consistent results on the concentration parameter in the range,

2160: $c_{\rm vir}= 12.6-13.6$, but with rather large uncertainties

2161: allowing a wide range of the concentration ($8\simlt c_{\rm vir} \simlt

2162: 20$). 

2163: %%%

2164: On the other hand, the best-fit values for $M_{\rm vir}$ range from

2165: $1.47\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$  for MEM-S, through $1.62\times

2166: 10^{15}M_{\odot}$ for MEM, to $1.97 \times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$ for MEM+,

2167: while the $1\sigma$ error level for each is $\sigma(M_{\rm vir}) \sim

2168: 0.2\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$. 

2169: 

2170: 

2171: 

2172: The observed location of the Einstein radius can be used for a powerful,

2173: model independent test of the $\kappa$ profile (B05b). This is based on

2174: the fact that the enclosed mass interior to the Einstein radius is given

2175: by fundamental constants and with knowledge of distances involved,

2176: namely $\bar{\kappa}(\theta_{\rm E})=1$ or $M(<\theta_{\rm

2177: E})=\pi(D_d\theta_{\rm E})^2\Sigma_{\rm crit}$,

2178: provided that the critical curve is nearly circular; this is the case

2179: for A1689 (B05b).

2180: %%%%%

2181: Although our weak lensing measurements 

2182: do not resolve such strong lensing phenomena,

2183: the observed Einstein radius of $\theta_{\rm E}=45''$ 

2184: %from the ACS observations 

2185: (for $z_s=1$)

2186: %%%%%

2187: may be used to test the derived NFW models.

2188: %with the observed Einstein radius

2189: %of $\theta_{\rm E}=45''$ for $z_s=1$ (B05b),

2190: To do this we numerically solve the equation $1=\bar{\kappa}_{\rm

2191: NFW}(\theta_{\rm E})$ for the Einstein radius $\theta_{\rm E}$ by the

2192: Newton-Raphson method.

2193: We found 

2194: $\theta_{\rm E}=36.7^{+22}_{-18}, 36.7^{+22}_{-20}, 45.4^{+17}_{-15}$

2195: for the MEM-S, MEM, and MEM+ reconstructions, respectively (Table \ref{tab:nfwfit}).

2196: All of the MEM reconstructions are roughly consistent with the ACS

2197: measurement of the Einstein radius; however,

2198: the constraints on

2199: the $\theta_{\rm E}$ 

2200: placed by the Subaru data alone 

2201: %from the Subaru observations alone 

2202: are still rather weak, naturally due to the lack of central mass 

2203: distribution.

2204: %satisfy the Einstein radius

2205: %constraint by the ACS observations

2206: 

2207: 

2208: To make a direct comparison with model predictions,

2209: we compute the convergence profile

2210: $\kappa(\theta)$ 

2211: from a weighted radial projection of the 2D $\kappa$ map as:

2212: %Given a two-dimensional $\kappa(\btheta_i)$ map 

2213: %and the covariance matrix $C_{ij}$ of the reconstruction errors

2214: %($i,j=1,2,...,N_{\rm pix}$),

2215: %we can calculate the convergence profile $\kappa(\theta)$ 

2216: %of the cluster

2217: %from a weighted radial projection of the pixelized

2218: % $\kappa(\btheta)$ map:

2219: \begin{equation}

2220: \label{eq:binkappa}

2221: \kappa_m\equiv

2222: \kappa(\bar\theta_m) = \sum_{i\in {\rm Bin} m} W_{im} \kappa(\btheta_i)

2223: \Big/

2224: \sum_{i\in {\rm Bin} m} W_{im},

2225: \end{equation}

2226: where $W_{im}$ ($0\le W_{im}\le 1$) is the fraction of the area of the 

2227: $i$th pixel lying within the $m$th annular bin. We use Monte Carlo

2228: integration to calculate these area fractions for individual pixels

2229: (Marshall et al. 2002), and $\bar\theta_m$ is the 

2230: area-weighted center of the $m$th radial bin:

2231: \begin{equation}

2232: \theta_m = \sum_{i\in {\rm Bin} m} W_{im} |\btheta_i|

2233: \Big/

2234: \sum_{i\in {\rm Bin} m} W_{im}.

2235: \end{equation}

2236:  Since the $\kappa_m$ profile is

2237: expressed as

2238: a linear combination of $\kappa(\btheta_i)$ values, it is

2239: straightforward to calculate the covariance matrix 

2240: $C_{mn} \equiv \langle

2241: \delta\kappa_m\delta\kappa_n

2242: %%\delta\kappa_(\bar\theta_m)\delta\kappa(\bar\theta_n)

2243: \rangle$

2244: of the reconstruction errors:

2245: \begin{eqnarray}

2246: \label{eq:bin2bincovar}

2247: C_{mn} 

2248: &=&  \sum_{i\in {\rm Bin} m} \sum_{j\in {\rm Bin} m}

2249: W_{im}W_{jn} C_{ij}

2250: \Big/

2251: \sum_{i\in {\rm Bin} m} W_{im}

2252: \sum_{j\in {\rm Bin} n} W_{jn}\nonumber\\

2253: &+&

2254: \delta_{mn}

2255: %\left(

2256: \sum_{i\in {\rm Bin} m} 

2257: W_{im}^2 [\kappa_m-\kappa(\btheta_i)]^2

2258: %\right)

2259: \Big/

2260: \left(\sum_{i\in {\rm Bin} m} W_{im}

2261: \right)^2,

2262: \end{eqnarray}

2263: where the first term represents the errors propagated from the 

2264: pixel-pixel covariance matrix of the 2D $\kappa$ reconstruction, 

2265: and the second term is responsible for variations of 

2266: the $\kappa(\btheta)$-field along the azimuthal direction, i.e.,

2267: departure from circular symmetry.

2268: 

2269: 

2270: Here we derive 

2271: for each of the 2D $\kappa$ maps

2272: a discrete convergence profile 

2273: (\ref{eq:binkappa})

2274: in $N_{\rm bin}$

2275: logarithmically spaced bins for $\theta = 

2276: [\theta_{\rm min},\theta_{\rm max}]$; we adopt the same binning as in B05a:

2277: $N_{\rm bin}=10$, $\theta_{\rm min}=1'$,

2278: and $\theta_{\rm max}=18'$, as summarized in Table \ref{tab:mrec}.

2279: In Figure \ref{fig:kprof_mem} we compare the convergence profiles from the

2280: 2D MEM+ and MEM reconstructions,

2281: both of which are based on the 

2282: lens distortion and magnification measurements,

2283:  to clarify the effect of the ACS

2284: constraint on the central surface mass density.

2285: The error bars represent the $1\sigma$ uncertainties 

2286:  from the diagonal

2287: part ($C_{mm}$) of the bin-to-bin covariance matrix given by

2288: equation (\ref{eq:bin2bincovar}), and hence are correlated between

2289: the different bins.

2290: One can see that overall the convergence profile obtained with the 

2291: central ACS

2292: constraint is slightly steeper than that without the ACS constraint,

2293: and has a slightly higher overall normalization;

2294: these features are well explained by

2295: %as explained by 

2296: slightly higher NFW mass ($M_{\rm vir}$) and concentration ($c_{\rm vir}$)

2297: derived for the results with the central ACS constraint.

2298: Nonetheless, the two convergence profiles 

2299: are overall in good agreement within the

2300: statistical uncertainties. 

2301: Steep NFW profiles with 

2302: $c_{\rm vir}\sim 13$ and 

2303: $M_{\rm vir}\sim 2\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$

2304: are well fitted to the reconstructed convergence profiles 

2305: (solid and dashed curves).

2306: Figure \ref{fig:kprof_3mem} shows convergence profiles from the three

2307: MEM reconstructions: MEM+ (squares), MEM (triangles), and MEM-S (crosses). 

2308: Note that the vertical axis is linear here rather than logarithmic.

2309: The convergence profile from the distortion data alone (MEM-S) shows a

2310: slight negative dip of $\kappa\sim -0.01$ at $\theta'\simgt 6'$ due to

2311: boundary effects.

2312: 

2313: 

2314: 

2315: 

2316: \subsection{Method (II): 1D Maximum Likelihood Analysis}  

2317: 

2318: %upporting the assumption of. quasi-circular symmetry in the projected

2319: %mass ... 2005, ApJ, 621, 53) and the Subaru weak lensing analysis with

2320: %the 1D reconstruction method ...

2321: 

2322: In B05a we developed a

2323: %model-independent 

2324: method for reconstructing the discrete convergence profile $\kappa_m$ 

2325: from a maximum likelihood combination of radial profiles of the lens

2326: distortion and magnification effects on red background galaxies (see

2327: Figure 3 of B05a).  

2328: %%%

2329: With the assumption of quasi-circular symmetry in the 

2330: projected mass distribution (or the projected potential field),

2331: one can express the lensing observables (i.e., tangential distortion and

2332: magnification bias) in terms of the binned convergence profile (see also

2333: \S \ref{subsec:zeta}). Owing to the nature of shear-based

2334: reconstruction, 

2335: boundary conditions need to be specified (as discussed in \S

2336: \ref{subsec:3mem}). 

2337: In B05a we set the inner boundary condition on the mass interior to 

2338: $\theta_{\rm min}=1'$, which is readily obtained from the

2339: well-constrained ACS mass model.

2340: %this 1D method also requires to set inner or outer

2341: %boundary conditions 

2342: 

2343: 

2344: One of the advantages of such a 1D method is that one can improve up on 

2345: the statistical significance of each measurement pixel by azimuthal

2346: averaging, provided that the system is nearly symmetric. 

2347: %%%

2348: B05a measured from the red background sample

2349: a tangential distortion 

2350: and a radial depletion profile

2351: in 10 discrete radial bins, 

2352: with total significance of ${\rm S/N}\simeq 14.2$ 

2353: and ${\rm S/N}=9.2$, respectively

2354: (see \S \ref{subsec:3mem}). Thus, the per-pixel S/N of each measurement

2355: is of the order of unity, which is optimal for an inversion problem.

2356: Accordingly,

2357: the 1D analysis does not require 

2358: regularization techniques. 

2359: The best-fitting NFW parameters for the Subaru 1D analysis 

2360: are listed in 

2361: Table \ref{tab:memmethod}.

2362: %%%

2363: %In \S \ref{subsec:comparison} we compare the convergence profile from

2364: %the Subaru 1D analysis by B05a with the results from the 2D MEM

2365: %reconstructions. 

2366: 

2367: 

2368: 

2369: \subsection{Method (III): Aperture Densitometry}

2370: \label{subsec:zeta}

2371: 

2372: The spin-2 shape distortion of an object 

2373: due to gravitational lensing

2374: is described by

2375: the complex reduced shear, $g=g_1+i g_2$ (see equation [\ref{eq:redshear}]),

2376:  which is coordinate dependent.

2377: For a given reference point on the sky, one can instead 

2378: form coordinate-independent

2379: quantities, 

2380: the tangential distortion $g_+$ and the $45^\circ$ rotated component,

2381: from linear combinations of the distortion coefficients

2382: $g_1$ and $g_2$ as

2383: \begin{equation}

2384: g_+ = -(g_1 \cos 2\phi + g_2\sin 2\phi), \ \ 

2385: g_{\times} = -(g_2 \cos 2\phi - g_1\sin 2\phi),

2386: \end{equation}

2387: %For a given point on the sky,

2388: %the tangential component $g_+$ is used to obtain the azimuthally

2389: %averaged distortion 

2390: %due to lensing and computed from the distortion

2391: %coefficients $g_1$ and $g_2$ as:

2392: %\begin{equation}

2393: %g_+= -(g_1 \cos 2\phi + g_2\sin 2\phi),

2394: %\end{equation}

2395: where $\phi$ is the position angle of an object with respect to

2396: the reference position, and the uncertainty in the $g_+$ and

2397: $g_{\times}$ 

2398: measurement 

2399: is $\sigma_+ = \sigma_{\times } = \sigma_{g}/\sqrt{2}\equiv \sigma$ 

2400: in terms of the rms error $\sigma_{g}$ for the complex shear measurement.

2401: In practice, the reference point is taken to be the cluster center,

2402: which is well determined from symmetry of the strong lensing pattern.

2403: %%%%%

2404: To improve the statistical significance of the distortion measurement,

2405: we calculate the weighted average of the $g_+$'s and its weighted error

2406: as

2407: \begin{eqnarray}

2408: \label{eq:gt}

2409: \langle g_+(\theta)\rangle &=& \frac{\sum  g_+/\sigma^2}{\sum

2410:  1/\sigma^2},\\

2411: \sigma_+(\theta) &=& \left(\sum 1/\sigma^2\right)^{-1/2}.

2412: \end{eqnarray}

2413: 

2414:  

2415: 

2416: For a shear-based estimation of the cluster mass profile

2417: we use a variant of the weak lensing aperture densitometry, or

2418: so-called the $\zeta$-statistic (Fahlman et al. 1994; Clowe et

2419: al. 2000), 

2420: of the form:

2421: \begin{eqnarray}

2422: \label{eq:zeta}

2423: \zeta_{\rm c}(\theta)

2424: &\equiv &

2425: 2\int_{\theta}^{\theta_{\rm inn}}\!d\ln\theta' 

2426: \gamma_+(\theta')\nonumber\\

2427: &&+ \frac{2}{1-(\theta_{\rm inn}/\theta_{\rm out})^2}\int_{\theta_{\rm

2428: inn}}^{\theta_{\rm out}}\! d\ln\theta'  

2429: \gamma_+(\theta')

2430: \nonumber\\

2431: &=& 

2432: \bar{\kappa}(\theta) - \bar{\kappa}

2433: (\theta_{\rm inn}<\vartheta <\theta_{\rm out}),

2434: \end{eqnarray}

2435: where 

2436: $\kappa(\theta)$ is the azimuthal average of 

2437: the convergence field $\kappa(\btheta)$ at radius $\theta$,

2438: $\bar{\kappa}(\theta)$ is the average convergence interior to 

2439:  radius $\theta$,

2440:  $\theta_{\rm inn}$ and $\theta_{\rm out}$ are the inner and

2441: outer radii of the annular background region in which the mean

2442: background contribution, 

2443: $\bar{\kappa}_b\equiv

2444: \bar{\kappa}(\theta_{\rm inn}<\vartheta <\theta_{\rm out})$,

2445: is defined;

2446: the $\gamma_+(\theta) = \bar{\kappa}(\theta)-\kappa(\theta)$ 

2447: is an azimuthal average of the tangential

2448: component of the gravitational shear at radius $\theta$

2449: (Fahlman et al. 1994),

2450: which is observable in the weak lensing limit: $\gamma_+(\theta)\approx

2451: \langle g_+(\theta)\rangle$.

2452: %%%%%

2453: This cumulative mass estimator

2454: subtracts  from the mean convergence 

2455: $\bar{\kappa}( \theta)$

2456: a constant 

2457: $ \bar{\kappa}_{\rm bg}$

2458: %=\bar{\kappa}(\theta_{\rm inn}<\vartheta <\theta_{\rm out})$ 

2459: %for fixed inner and outer radii,

2460: %$\theta_{\rm inn}$ and $\theta_{\rm out}$, 

2461: for all apertures $\theta$ in the measurements, 

2462: thus removing any DC component in the control

2463: region $\theta = [\theta_{\rm inn}, \theta_{\rm out}]$.

2464: We note that the $\bar{\kappa}_b$ is 

2465: a non-observable free parameter, and we 

2466: use this degree-of-freedom

2467: to fix the outer boundary condition,

2468: and hence to derive a convergence profile.

2469: %%%%%

2470: %%%%%

2471: 

2472: 

2473: 

2474: 

2475: We compute the aperture densitometry profile

2476: $\zeta_{\rm c}(\theta_m)$ 

2477: in $N_{\zeta}=10$ logarithmically spaced bins

2478: for $\theta = [\theta_{\rm min},\theta_{\rm max}]$,

2479: which we set to 

2480: $\theta_{\rm min}=1'$ and $\theta_{\rm max}=16'$;

2481: the maximum radius $\theta_{\rm max}$ is comparable to 

2482: the angular size of 

2483: the cluster virial radius,

2484:  $\theta_{\rm vir}=15\farcm 7$

2485: ($r_{\rm vir} \sim 2 {\rm Mpc}/h$), 

2486: according to the ACS+Subaru-1D model (B05a).

2487: %%%%

2488: The inner and outer background radii 

2489: %$(\theta_{\rm inn},\theta_{\rm out})$

2490: are set to $\theta_{\rm inn}=\theta_{\rm max}=16'$ and $\theta_{\rm

2491: out}=19'$, respectively.

2492: %%%%

2493: Using the ACS+Subaru-1D model by B05a,

2494: the mean background level, $\bar\kappa_b$, is calculated to be 

2495: $\bar\kappa_b\sim 4.0 \times 10^{-3}$

2496: for our red background population with $\langle

2497: D_{ds}/D_s\rangle=0.693$, at an effective source redshift of $z_{s,D}=0.68$ 

2498: (see equation [\ref{eq:zD}]).

2499: Note that the current 

2500: $1\sigma$ upper limit is

2501: $\kappa(\theta) \simlt 0.01$ at $\theta\simgt 8'$ (B05a).

2502: %%%

2503: For a given boundary condition $\bar{\kappa}_b$, the average

2504: convergence $\bar{\kappa}(\theta_m)$ is estimated as

2505: \begin{equation}

2506: \label{eq:z2avk}

2507: \bar{\kappa}(\theta_m) = \zeta_{\rm c}(\theta_m) + \bar{\kappa}_b.

2508: \end{equation}

2509: Then, we define a discretized estimator for $\kappa$ as

2510: \begin{equation}

2511: \label{eq:zeta2kappa}

2512: \kappa_m\equiv

2513: \kappa(\overline{\theta}_m)

2514: = \alpha_2^m \zeta(\theta_{m+1})

2515: - \alpha_1^m \zeta(\theta_{m})

2516: +(\alpha_2^m-\alpha_1^m)\bar{\kappa}_b,

2517: \end{equation}

2518: where

2519: \begin{equation}

2520: \alpha_1^m = \frac{1}{2\Delta\ln\theta_m} 

2521: \left( 

2522:   \frac{\theta_{m}}{ \overline{\theta}_m }

2523: \right)^2, \, \, 

2524: %%

2525: \alpha_2^m = \frac{1}{2\Delta\ln\theta_m} 

2526: \left(\frac{\theta_{m+1}}{ \overline{\theta}_m }\right)^2,

2527: \end{equation}

2528: and 

2529:  $\bar\theta_m$ is the weighted center of the $m$th radial bin

2530: ($m=1,2,...,N_{\zeta}-1$; see Appendix \ref{app:kappad}).

2531: %%%

2532: It is worth noting that, unlike strong-lensing based boundary

2533: conditions (e.g., B05a),

2534: %where the location of Einstein rings or the model-predicted

2535: %interior mass is used to normalize $\kappa$, 

2536: this method utilizes an outer boundary condition on the mean background

2537: density $\bar\kappa_b$ to derive a $\kappa$ profile (see Schneider \&

2538: Seitz 1995 for an alternative method for a direct inversion of the mass

2539: profile).   

2540: The error covariance matrix $C_{mn}$ of $\kappa_m$ is expressed as

2541: \begin{eqnarray}

2542: C_{mn} \equiv \langle \delta\kappa_m \delta\kappa_n \rangle

2543: &=& 

2544: \alpha_2^m \alpha_2^n C^{\zeta}_{m+1,n+1}

2545: +  

2546: \alpha_1^m \alpha_1^n C^{\zeta}_{m,n}\nonumber\\

2547: &-&

2548: \alpha_1^m \alpha_2^n C^{\zeta}_{m,n+1}

2549: -

2550: \alpha_2^m \alpha_1^n C^{\zeta}_{m+1,n},

2551: \end{eqnarray}

2552: where $C^{\zeta}_{mn}\equiv \langle \delta\zeta_m\delta\zeta_n\rangle$

2553: is the bin-to-bin error covariance matrix of the aperture densitometry

2554: measurements which is calculated by propagating the rms errors

2555: $\sigma_+(\theta_m)$ for the tangential shear measurement (Okabe \&

2556: Umetsu 2008). 

2557: 

2558: 

2559: 

2560: In the non-linear regime, however,

2561: the $\gamma_+(\theta)$ is not a direct observable.

2562: Therefore, non-linear corrections need to be taken into account 

2563: in the mass reconstruction process.

2564: %%%

2565: In the subcritical regime (i.e., outside the critical curves),

2566: the $\gamma_+(\theta)$

2567: can be expressed in terms of the 

2568: the averaged tangential reduced shear as

2569: $\langle g_+(\theta) \rangle \approx

2570: \gamma_+(\theta)/[1-\kappa(\theta)]$

2571: assuming a quasi circular symmetry in the projected mass distribution

2572: (B05a; Umetsu et al. 2007).

2573: This non-linear equation (\ref{eq:zeta})

2574: for $\zeta_{\rm c}(\theta)$ can be solved by an iterative procedure:

2575: Since the weak lensing limit ($\kappa,|\gamma|,|g|\ll 1$) holds in the

2576: background region $\theta_{\rm inn}\le \theta \le \theta_{\rm

2577: max}$, we have the following iterative equation for $\zeta_{\rm

2578: c}(\theta)$: 

2579: \begin{eqnarray}

2580: \zeta_{\rm c}^{(k+1)}(\theta)

2581: &\approx&

2582: 2\int_{\theta}^{\theta_{\rm inn}}\!d\ln\theta' 

2583: \langle g_+(\theta)\rangle [1-\kappa^{(k)}(\theta)] \nonumber\\

2584: &+& \frac{2}{1-(\theta_{\rm inn}/\theta_{\rm out})^2}\int_{\theta_{\rm

2585: inn}}^{\theta_{\rm out}}\! d\ln\theta'  

2586: \langle g_+(\theta')\rangle,

2587: \end{eqnarray} 

2588: where $\zeta_{\rm c}^{(k+1)}$ 

2589: represents the 

2590: aperture densitometry in the $(k+1)$th 

2591: step of the iteration

2592: $(k=0,1,2,...,N_{\rm iter})$; 

2593: the $\kappa^{(k+1)}$ is

2594: calculated from $\zeta_{\rm c}^{(k+1)}$ using equation (\ref{eq:zeta2kappa}).

2595: This iteration is preformed by

2596: starting with $\kappa^{(0)}=0$ for all radial bins, and repeated 

2597: until convergence is reached at all radial bins. For a fractional

2598: tolerance of $1\times 10^{-5}$, this iteration procedure converges

2599: within $N_{\rm iter} \sim 10$ iterations.

2600: We compute errors for $\zeta_{\rm c}$ and $\kappa$ 

2601: with the linear approximation.

2602: 

2603: 

2604: Figure \ref{fig:zeta2kappa} shows the resulting model-independent mass

2605: profile (squares) of A1689 with decorrelated error bars, along with the

2606: results without the non-linear corrections (triangles).

2607: Without the non-linear corrections, central bins at $\theta \simlt 3'$

2608: are underestimated by $\sim 15\%$ at maximum.

2609: %%% revised version

2610: %The outer radial bins at $\theta \approx 7\arcmin$ and $12\arcmin$ are

2611: %consistent with a null signal to within $1\sigma$.

2612: %%% submitted version

2613: %The outer profile at $\theta \simgt  6'$ is consistent with a null signal

2614: %to within $1\sigma$. 

2615: The reconstructed convergence in the first bin is 

2616: %%% revised version :: kappa(1\farcm 2) = 0.322 \pm 0.15

2617: $\kappa(1\farcm 2)= 0.32 \pm  0.15$ 

2618: %%% submitted version :: wrong background aperture used

2619: %$\kappa(1\farcm 2)= 0.316 \pm  0.122$ 

2620: (decorrelated $1\sigma$ error),

2621: which is consistent at the $\sim 1\sigma$ level

2622: with the previous Subaru 1D results (B05a):

2623: $\kappa(1\farcm 2)=0.44^{+0.11}_{-0.12}$ ($1\sigma$) for the red

2624: background population with $\langle D_{ds}/D_s\rangle\approx 0.693$.

2625: %based on the combined Subaru distortion and depletion profiles.

2626: %%%%%

2627: We note that B05a utilized an inner boundary condition on the mean

2628: $\kappa$ interior to $\theta_{\rm min}=1'$ based on the ACS mass profile. 

2629: 

2630: 

2631: Force fitting an NFW profile to the derived $\kappa$ profile yields

2632: %% @@submitted version

2633: %% $M_{\rm vir}=(1.51\pm 0.26)\times 10^{15} M_{\odot}$ ($r_{\rm vir}=

2634: %% 1.87\pm 0.10 {\rm Mpc}/h$) with the adopted prior $c_{\rm vir}\le

2635: %% 30$, 

2636: %% @@revised version (2008/04/08)

2637:  $M_{\rm vir}=(1.48\pm 0.27)\times 10^{15} M_{\odot}$ and $c_{\rm

2638:  vir}=27.3^{+2.7}_{-19.3}$ 

2639: with the adopted prior $c_{\rm vir}\le 30$,

2640: %($r_{\rm vir}=

2641: % 1.87\pm 0.10 {\rm Mpc}/h$) with the adopted prior $c_{\rm vir}\le

2642: where $\chi^2_{\rm min}/{\rm dof}=5.2/7 (7)$.

2643: %%%

2644: It is interesting to compare the reconstructed $\kappa$ profile with  

2645: the tangential shear profile, $\langle g_{+}(\theta)\rangle$,

2646: which is a direct observable with uncorrelated measurement errors

2647: (see equation [\ref{eq:gt}]). In B05a we show the tangential distortion

2648: profile for the same red background sample as used in the present study

2649: (see Figure 1 of B05a, or Figure \ref{fig:gt} below).  

2650: %%%

2651: The best-fitting NFW model for the shear profile is

2652: given by $M_{\rm vir}=(1.51\pm 0.26)\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$ and

2653: a high concentration,

2654: $c_{\rm vir}=20^{+8.8}_{-5.3}$ ($\chi^2_{\rm min}/{\rm dof}=5.0/8$), 

2655: which is in good agreement with the results from the 1D reconstruction

2656: based on the aperture densitometry.  

2657: %%%%

2658: Such a detailed agreement ensures the validity of the boundary condition

2659: for a shear-based mass reconstruction. 

2660: %%%

2661: We note that simply assuming $\bar\kappa_b=0$ yields similar results, 

2662:  $M_{\rm vir}=(1.51\pm 0.3) \times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$

2663: ($c_{\rm vir}\le 30$) 

2664: with $\chi^2_{\rm min}/{\rm dof}=5.5/7 (5)$,

2665: being consistent within the $1\sigma$ uncertainty.

2666: 

2667: 

2668: 

2669: 

2670: \subsection{Combining Strong and Weak Lensing Results}

2671: \label{subsec:acs+subaru}

2672: 

2673: \subsubsection{ACS Constraints}

2674: \label{subsubsec:acs}

2675: 

2676: As demonstrated in B05a and the previous sections,

2677: it is crucial to have information on the 

2678: central mass distribution in order to 

2679: derive useful constraints on the concentration parameter,

2680: and hence to distinguish the NFW profile from others.

2681: To do this, we constrain the two NFW parameters

2682: from $\chi^2$ fitting to the 

2683: combined Subaru weak lensing and ACS

2684: strong lensing observations following B05a and Oguri et al. (2005):

2685: \begin{equation}

2686: \label{eq:chi2_combined}

2687: \chi^2=\chi^2_{\rm WL} + \chi^2_{\rm SL},

2688: \end{equation}

2689: where the $\chi^2_{\rm WL}$ for the Subaru observations is defined by

2690: equation (\ref{eq:chi2_wl}).

2691: For the ACS data we use an azimuthally averaged profile of the $\kappa$

2692: map well constrained by the strong lensing observations of B05b; 

2693: this profile is given in $N_{\rm SL}=12$ bins linearly spacing 

2694: over the range $\theta = [0\farcm 077, 0\farcm 97]$

2695: (see Figure 22 of B05b, or Figure 3 of B05a), and the amplitude

2696: is scaled to $\langle D_{ds}/D_s\rangle=0.693$ of our red background

2697: sample from $D_{ds}/D_s=0.881$ at $z_s=3$. 

2698: It is important to note that the ACS strong lensing analysis of B05b

2699: unveiled the secondary mass clump associated with a small clump of

2700: galaxies (Teague et al. 1990; Czoske 2004). However, the mass 

2701: contribution of this subclump is only a small fraction of 

2702: the cluster mass component (see Figures 21 and 22 of B05b)

2703: and it only slightly perturbs the tangential critical curve

2704: (see B05b). The ACS mass profile is corrected for the subclump, where

2705: the secondary clump region is locally masked out when taking an azimuthal

2706: average (B05b). 

2707: %%%

2708: By combining the Subaru and ACS lensing analyses,

2709: we can trace the cluster mass distribution over a 

2710: large range in amplitude $\kappa\sim [10^{-3},1]$ and

2711: in projected radius $r=[10^{-2},2] {\rm Mpc}/h$. 

2712: %%%

2713: The $\chi^2$ function for the ACS observations is expressed as

2714: \begin{equation}

2715: \chi^2_{\rm SL} = \sum_{i=1}^{N_{{\rm SL}}}\frac{

2716: (\kappa_i-\hat\kappa_i)^2

2717: }

2718: {\sigma_i^2}

2719: \end{equation} 

2720: where $\hat{\kappa}(\btheta_i)$ is the model prediction of the 

2721: NFW halo for the $i$th pixel ($i=1,2,...,N_{\rm pix}$), 

2722: and $\sigma_i$ is the $1\sigma$ error for $\kappa_i$; 

2723: the bin width of the

2724: ACS-derived convergence profile is sufficiently broad to 

2725: ensure that the errors between different bins are independent (B05b)

2726: 

2727: \subsubsection{Einstein-Radius Constraint}

2728: \label{subsubsec:ein}

2729: 

2730: Alternatively, as a model independent constraint,\footnote{We

2731: note that this is based on the assumption of the circular symmetry in

2732: the projected lens mass distribution, and that a rather tight prior

2733: (estimated from data) is applied to one of the ``parameters'' (i.e.,

2734: $\theta_{\rm E}$). }  

2735: we can utilize the observed location of tangential critical curves

2736: traced by giant arcs and multiply imaged background galaxies, defining

2737: an approximate Einstein radius, $\theta_{\rm E}$.

2738: This radius is determined from strong lensing modeling of many multiple

2739: images visible around these clusters in deep HST/ACS images (B05b),

2740: and corresponds to the theoretically extreme value of the ellipticity,

2741: $g_+(\theta_{\rm E})=1$. This Einstein-radius constraint

2742: complements in a model independent manner the weak lensing shape

2743: measurements.

2744: 

2745: We constrain the NFW model parameters ($c_{\rm vir}, M_{\rm vir}$) 

2746: by combining weak lensing profiles and the Einstein-radius

2747: constraint. We define the $\chi^2$ function for combined weak lensing

2748: distortion and Einstein-radius constraints by 

2749: \begin{equation}

2750: \label{eq:chi2_g_rein}

2751: \chi^2 = \sum_m

2752: \frac{\left[ \langle g_{+}(\theta_m) \rangle - \hat{g}_{+}(\theta_m)

2753:       \right]^2} 

2754:   {\sigma_{+}^2(\theta_m)} + 

2755: \frac{\left[1-\hat{g}_+(\theta_{\rm E},z_{\rm E})\right]^2}

2756:  {\sigma_{+,{\rm E}}^2},

2757: \end{equation}

2758: where the first term is the $\chi^2$-function for the Subaru

2759: tangential shear measurements (\S \ref{subsec:zeta}) and the second term

2760: is the $\chi^2$ function for the Einstein radius constraint;

2761: $\hat{g}_{+}(\theta_m)$ is the NFW model prediction

2762: for the reduced tangential shear at $\theta=\theta_m$ calculated for the

2763: red background sample (see \S  \ref{subsec:red}),

2764: $\hat{g}_{+}(\theta_{\rm E}, z_{\rm E})$ is the  

2765: model prediction for the reduced tangential shear at $\theta=\theta_{\rm

2766: E}$, evaluated at the arc redshift, $z_s=z_{\rm E}$, and $\sigma_{+,{\rm

2767: E}}$ is the rms error for $g_+(\theta_{\rm E}, z_{\rm E})$. 

2768: Following B05b, we take $\theta_{\rm E}=45\arcsec$ at $z_E=1$, and

2769: assume conservatively a 10\% error for the Einstein radius:

2770: $\sigma_{\theta_{\rm E}}/\theta_{\rm E}=0.1$. We then

2771: propagate this error to $g_+$ assuming a singular isothermal sphere (SIS)

2772: model; At $r\simlt r_s$, the density slope of NFW is shallower than that

2773: of SIS (see Figure 1 of Wright \& Brainerd 2000), so that this gives a

2774: fairly conservative estimate of $\sigma_{+,{\rm E}}$. 

2775: For the SIS model, $\partial\ln g_+/\partial\ln \theta_{\rm E}=2$

2776: %$\Delta\ln g_+ = 2\Delta\ln \theta_{\rm E}$ 

2777: at $\theta=\theta_{\rm E}$, so that $\sigma_{+,{\rm E}} =

2778: 2\sigma_{\theta_{\rm E}}/\theta_{\rm E}=0.2$.

2779: %for our assumed $10\%$ uncertainty in $\theta_{\rm E}$.

2780:  

2781: 

2782: Alternatively we can combine the $\kappa$ profile reconstructed from

2783: weak lensing distortion measurements (\S \ref{subsec:zeta}) with the

2784: Einstein-radius constraint. For an axially symmetric lens, the

2785: Einstein-radius constraint is simply written as

2786: $\bar{\kappa}(\theta_{\rm E},z_{\rm E})=1$. Thus, the $\chi^2$ function

2787: is now expressed as

2788:   \begin{equation}

2789: \label{eq:chi2_k_rein}

2790: \chi^2 = \sum_{m,n}

2791: \left[\kappa(\theta_m) - \hat\kappa(\theta_m) \right]

2792:  \left(C^{-1}\right)_{mn}

2793: \left[\kappa(\theta_n) - \hat\kappa_n(\theta_n) \right]

2794: + 

2795: \frac{

2796: \left[ 1-\hat{\bar{\kappa}}(\theta_{\rm E},z_{\rm E}) 

2797: \right]^2 

2798: } 

2799: {\sigma_{\bar\kappa,{\rm E}}^2},

2800: \end{equation}

2801: where $\hat{\bar{\kappa}}(\theta_{\rm E}, z_{\rm E})$ is the model

2802: prediction for the average convergence interior to the Einstein radius 

2803: $\theta_{\rm E}$ evaluated at the arc redshift of $z_s=z_{\rm E}$, and

2804: $\sigma_{\bar\kappa, {\rm E}}$ is the rms error for

2805: $\bar\kappa(\theta_{\rm E}, z_{\rm E})$,

2806: which we take as

2807: $\sigma_{\bar\kappa,{\rm E}} = \sigma_{\theta_{\rm E}}/\theta_{\rm

2808: E}=0.1$. 

2809: 

2810: 

2811: %normalize but leave a degree of freedom corresponding to the

2812: %uncertainty in the Einstein radius.

2813: 

2814: 

2815: \subsubsection{Comparison} 

2816: \label{subsubsec:comparison}

2817: 

2818: 

2819: Table \ref{tab:nfwfit} summarizes for each mass reconstruction

2820: the best-fitting NFW parameters

2821: $(M_{\rm vir},c_{\rm vir})$, the minimized $\chi^2$ value with respect

2822: to the degrees of freedom, and the predicted Einstein radius

2823: $\theta_{\rm E}$ for a fiducial source at $z_s=1$.

2824: Here for each of the Subaru reconstructions, we compare the

2825: best-fit NFW parameters with and without the ACS inner profile combined,

2826: as indicated in the third column of Table \ref{tab:nfwfit}.

2827: When combined with the inner ACS profile,

2828: all of the Subaru reconstructions yield a virial mass

2829: in the range $M_{\rm vir}\sim (1.8-2.1)\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$

2830: and a high concentration in the range $c_{\rm vir}\sim 13-15$,

2831: properly reproducing the observed Einstein radius of $\sim 45\arcsec$ 

2832: at $z_s=1$ (B05b). In particular, fitting an NFW

2833: profile to  the combined ACS and Subaru-2D data based on the MEM+ mass

2834: reconstruction (see Table \ref{tab:memmethod}) yields $M_{\rm

2835: vir}=(2.10\pm 0.17)\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$ and  $c_{\rm

2836: vir}=12.7^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$  ($\chi^2_{\rm min}/{\rm dof}=335/846$;

2837: effective dof of $433$ without including upper limit bins with

2838: $\kappa<0$), with the predicted Einstein radius of $\theta_{\rm

2839: E}=45.3^{+5.9}_{-6.2}$ arcsec.  

2840: %%%%

2841: 

2842: 

2843: The 2D-based results here can be compared with the corresponding results

2844: from the Subaru 1D analysis of B05a (see Table \ref{tab:nfwfit}) based

2845: on the combined distortion and magnification measurements. The

2846: combined ACS and Subaru-1D convergence profile is well fitted by an NFW

2847: profile with $M_{\rm vir}=(1.9\pm 0.2)\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$ and

2848: $c_{\rm vir}=13.7^{+1.4}_{-1.1}$ (B05a), with the predicted Einstein radius of 

2849: $\theta_{\rm E}=45.4^{+7.6}_{-6.9}$ arcsec, in good agreement with

2850: the present full 2D analysis within the statistical uncertainties;

2851: this agreement between the 1D and 2D analyses supports

2852: the assumption of quasi-circular symmetry in the projected

2853: mass distribution.

2854: It is interesting to compare these results with different combinations

2855: of lensing measurements having different systematics.

2856: Another combination of the ACS and Subaru 1D convergence profile,

2857: derived from the shear-based $\zeta$-statistic measurements (\S

2858: \ref{subsubsec:ein}), yields fairly 

2859: consistent results: $M_{\rm vir}=1.91^{+0.24}_{-0.20}\times

2860: 10^{15}M_{\odot}$ and $c_{\rm vir}=13.7^{+1.5}_{-1.3}$. This consistency

2861: clearly demonstrates that our results here are insensitive to systematic

2862: errors in the lensing measurements, such as the shear calibration

2863: error. 

2864: %%%%

2865: 

2866: In Figure \ref{fig:mass} we make a direct comparison 

2867: between model-independent convergence profiles of A1689 from

2868: different weak lensing techniques, along with the ACS-derived

2869: inner profile obtained by B05b (filled triangles).

2870: The filled circles with error bars show

2871: the results based on the 2D $\kappa$ map reconstructed

2872: from an entropy-regularized maximum-likelihood combination

2873: of the lens magnification and distortion of red background galaxies

2874: (MEM+, Table \ref{tab:memmethod}).

2875: %the error bars are correlated,

2876: %and are given by the square root of the diagonal part of the 

2877: %bin-bin covariance matrix (equation [\ref{eq:bin2bincovar}]).

2878: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2879: The open triangles represent the $\kappa$ profile

2880: from the non-linear $\zeta_{\rm c}$-statistic measurements.

2881: %where decorrelated error bars are shown.

2882: The filled circles show the results from the Subaru 1D analysis

2883: by B05a based on the combined magnification and distortion

2884: profiles of the same red background population as 

2885: in the present study.

2886: %measured from the same red background sample as

2887: %in the prsent study.

2888: %The 1D- and 2D-based NFW models from the respective combined

2889: %ACS and Subaru data are also shown as solid and dashed curves,

2890: %respectively.

2891: It is clearly seen from Figure \ref{fig:mass} that

2892: the Subaru-derived $\kappa$ profiles are all in good agreement

2893: within the statistical uncertainties, over the full range of radii up to

2894: $\sim 2{\rm Mpc}/h$. 

2895: %%%%

2896: The entire mass profile traced by the combined ACS and Subaru

2897: information is well described by a single NFW profile (solid and dashed)

2898: with a high concentration ($c_{\rm vir}\sim 13-14$).

2899: For comparison an NFW profile with a low concentration $c_{\rm vir}=5$

2900: normalized to the observed Einstein radius of $45\arcsec$ (at $z_s=1$)

2901: is shown as a dotted curve.

2902: Such a low concentration profile as favored by 

2903: the standard  $\Lambda$CDM model

2904: clearly overpredicts the outer

2905: profile constrained by the Subaru weak lensing observations.

2906: 

2907: Figure \ref{fig:joint} shows the 

2908: $68\%$, $95\%$, and $99.7\%$ confidence levels

2909: ($\Delta\chi^2=2.3, 6.17$, and $11.8$) in 

2910: the $(c_{\rm vir},M_{\rm vir})$-plane for 

2911: each of the three-different 2D MEM reconstructions 

2912: (from top to bottom: MEM-S, MEM, and MEM+,

2913: see Table \ref{tab:memmethod})

2914: with (right) and without (left) the central ACS profile 

2915: at $10{\rm kpc}/h \simlt r \simlt 180 {\rm kpc}/h$

2916: combined.

2917: As shown in the left panels, $M_{\rm vir}$ is well constrained

2918: by the Subaru data alone, while the Subaru constraint on 

2919: $c_{\rm vir}$ is rather weak, allowing a wide range of 

2920: the concentration parameter, $c_{\rm vir}$. The complementary

2921: ACS observations, when combined with the Subaru observations,

2922: significantly narrow down the uncertainties on $c_{\rm vir}$

2923: (right panels), placing stringent constraints on the inner mass

2924: profile. 

2925: For each sub-panel, the observed constraints on 

2926: the Einstein radius,

2927: $\theta_{\rm E}\simeq 45\arcsec$ at $z_s=1$,

2928: are shown as a dashed curve.

2929: This clearly demonstrates that the ACS-derived constraints

2930: on the $\kappa$-field ensure the correct size of the observed

2931: Einstein radius. 

2932: 

2933: 

2934: 

2935: Table \ref{tab:nfwref} lists the best-fitting NFW parameters

2936: obtained in different studies. Here we quote as the NFW parameters  

2937: $(c_{200},M_{200})$ evaluated at a specific fractional overdensity of

2938: $\Delta_c=200$  with respect to the critical density $\rho_{\rm

2939: crit}(z_d)$ for closure of the universe at $z_d=0.183$  as well as those

2940: in terms of the virial properties, $(c_{\rm vir},M_{\rm vir})$.

2941: We convert a given set of  $(c_{200},M_{200})$ into $(c_{\rm vir},

2942: M_{\rm vir})$ assuming a spherical  NFW density profile (see, e.g.,

2943: Appendix A of Shimizu et al. 2003). 

2944: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2945: We show in Figure \ref{fig:joint_gt} the same confidence levels as in

2946: Figure \ref{fig:joint} but for the Subaru $g_+$ profile of B05a.

2947: Also shown are best-fit sets of $(c_{\rm vir}, M_{\rm vir})$

2948: taken from

2949: %% the combined strong and weak lensing analysis of

2950: %Halkola et al. (2006) and the CFHT weak lensing analysis of Limousin et 

2951: %al. (2007) 

2952: Halkola et al. (2006) and Limousin et al. (2007) as well as from our

2953: combined ACS and MEM+ results. 

2954: %%%%

2955: %%%%

2956: The best-fitting NFW parameters for the Subaru $g_+$ profile (cross)

2957: are $M_{\rm vir}=1.51^{+0.27}_{-0.24}\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$

2958: and $c_{\rm vir}=20.0^{+8.8}_{-5.3}$ (Table \ref{tab:nfwfit}),

2959: being marginally consistent with the very high concentration 

2960: of $c_{\rm vir}=27.2^{+3.5}_{-5.7}$

2961: derived  by Medezinski et al. (2007)

2962: \footnote{

2963: Unlike our analysis here, Medezinski et al. (2007) used

2964: the observed constraints on the Einstein radius 

2965: when fitting an NFW profile to 

2966: the $g_{+}$ profile measured from 

2967: the combined red and blue 

2968: sample of the background.}.

2969: The $\kappa$ field derived from the present full 2D analysis,

2970: in conjunction with the central ACS profile, favors 

2971: a slightly lower, but still high, concentration of $c_{\rm vir}\sim 13$

2972: (triangle), reproducing the observed Einstein radius of

2973: $\sim 45\arcsec$ at $z_s=1$.

2974: %%%%

2975: On the other hand,

2976: Limousin et al. (2007) found from their CFHT weak lensing analysis

2977: a concentration of $c_{\rm vir} =  9.6\pm 2.0$

2978: %($c_{200}=7.6\pm 1.6$) 

2979: and a virial mass of 

2980: $M_{\rm vir} =  1.5^{+0.3}_{-0.2}\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$

2981: (filled circle),

2982: corresponding to the Einstein radius of $24\pm 11$ arcsec (at $z_s=1$),

2983: %%completely 

2984: inconsistent with the observed Einstein radius.

2985: %%%%

2986: The results from Halkola et al. (2006) with  

2987: $c_{\rm vir} =  9.6\pm 0.4$

2988: and $M_{\rm vir} = 2.6^{+0.2}_{-0.1}\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$

2989: (square) 

2990: come closer to the observed Einstein radius,

2991: being marginally consistent within the $1\sigma$ uncertainty

2992: ($\theta_{\rm E}=39^{+6}_{-3}$ arcsec at $z_s=1$),

2993: based on almost exactly the same shear data used in B05a but with a

2994: different weighting which prefers their inner strong-lensing based

2995: profile where the ACS data imply a shallower

2996: slope, as discussed in Medezinski et al. (2007) and Limousin et

2997: al. (2007). 

2998: 

2999:   

3000: 

3001: It is useful to compare the results from different lensing studies

3002: %%(see Table \ref{tab:nfwref})

3003: %%model predictions 

3004: in terms of the tangential distortion, $g_+$, that is directly

3005: observable in weak lensing.

3006: Figure \ref{fig:gt} shows the radial profiles of $g_+$ and $g_\times$

3007: %the tangential

3008: %distortion, $g_+$, and the $45^\circ$-rotated component, $g_\times$,

3009: derived in B05a

3010: from the same red background sample as used in this work, 

3011: where we have added the observed Einstein-radius constraint of

3012: $\theta_{\rm E}=45\pm 5$ arcsec ($z_s=1$), translated to the mean depth

3013: of the red background sample (\S \ref{subsec:red}), marking the point of

3014: maximum distortion, $g_+=1$ ($\theta_{\rm E}=39\pm 4$ arcsec). The

3015: ACS+Subaru-2D NFW model (solid curve) 

3016: fits reasonably well with the entire distortion profile, 

3017: $r\sim [80,2000] {\rm kpc}/h$, although it slightly overpredicts the

3018: outer profile at $\theta \simgt 9\arcmin$, meaning that the observed

3019: $g_+$ profile is steeper at large radii, as pointed out in

3020: Medezinski et al. (2007).

3021: %%%%

3022: In contrast the best-fit NFW model of Limousin et al. (2007),

3023: shown with the dashed curve, is in agreement 

3024: with the Subaru outer profile, particularly

3025: at $10\arcmin \simlt \theta \simlt 18\arcmin$,

3026: but underpredicts significantly the inner $g_+$ profile,

3027: leading to a significant underprediction of the Einstein radius.

3028: %%($\theta_{\rm E}=24\pm 11$  arcsec for $z_s=1$).

3029: On the other hand,

3030: the dotted curve in Figure \ref{fig:gt} shows the NFW profile of

3031: Halkola et al. (2006),

3032: %for a simultaneous fit to their ACS inner mass

3033: %profile and the Subaru distortion profile of B05a. 

3034: which is overall in good agreement with the observed $g_+$ profile,   

3035: and with the NFW prediction of this work, 

3036: but increasingly overestimates the distortion signal with radius, 

3037: %being too shallow at large radii $\simgt 10\arcmin$,

3038: and slightly underpredicts the Einstein radius. 

3039: This is again consistent with that the discrepancy between the derived

3040: NFW parameters of this work and Halkola et al. (2006) is due to

3041: the relative weights in the fitting procedure

3042: assigned differently to the strong and weak lensing

3043: measurements; that is, a relatively higher

3044: weight is given by Halkola et al. (2006) 

3045: to the shallower inner profile at $r\simlt 40 {\rm kpc}/h$ constrained

3046: by the radial arcs,\footnote{The location of the observed radial critical

3047: curve is at $\theta\approx 17\arcsec$ as found in B05b.}  

3048: and consequently, the location of the outer critical curve is slightly

3049: underpredicted.  However, we argue this does not indicate a discrepancy

3050: between our strong and weak lensing results, but is simply that the form

3051: of the NFW profile is not entirely consistent with our data ranging from

3052: $10$ to $2000 {\rm kpc}/h$; the best-fit NFW profile is either too

3053: shallow at large radii or too steep at small radii, depending on the

3054: radial limits being examined.

3055: 

3056: 

3057: 

3058: 

3059: 

3060: \subsection{Systematic Errors of the Concentration Parameter}

3061: \label{subsec:sys}

3062: 

3063: 

3064: 

3065: In this subsection we address the issues of systematic errors on the

3066: halo concentration $c_{\rm vir}$ inherent in our lensing measurements and

3067: analysis methods. Here we discuss the following potential sources of

3068: systematic uncertainty: (i) selection criteria for the red

3069: background sample (\S \ref{subsec:red}), (ii) background redshift

3070: distribution (\S \ref{subsec:red}), (iii)

3071: magnification analysis (\S \ref{subsec:mag}, \S

3072: \ref{subsec:declustering}), (iv) inner boundary condition (\S

3073: \ref{subsec:acs}),

3074: (v) strong lensing model (\S \ref{subsec:acs} and \S \ref{subsubsec:ein}),  

3075: (vi) entropic prior (\S \ref{subsec:massrec}), and

3076: (vii) shear calibration error.

3077: In Table \ref{tab:sys} we summarize the systematic errors of 

3078: the halo concentration, $c_{\rm vir}$,

3079: given in fraction of the best-fit value of

3080: $c_{\rm vir}=12.7$ obtained from the combined ACS and Subaru-2D (MEM+)

3081: data. Adding all potential sources of error

3082: in quadrature, the total uncertainty in our determination of

3083: the halo concentration is $c_{\rm vir}=12.7 \pm 1 ({\rm statistical})

3084: \pm 2.8 ({\rm systematic})$.  

3085: %a joint fit to the ACS and Subaru-2D (MEM+) data. 

3086: %e use the 2D MEM+ method for reconstructing the

3087: %$\kappa$ map, and combine it with the ACS inner mass profile to deduce

3088: %the best-fit NFW parameters, unless otherwise noted.

3089: 

3090: 

3091: 

3092: 

3093: 

3094: \subsubsection{Background Selection Criteria}

3095: \label{subsubsec:sys_zs}

3096: 

3097: As clearly demonstrated by B05a and Medezinski et al. (2007), a secure

3098: background selection is critical in the cluster weak lensing

3099: analysis, in order to avoid dilution of the distortion signal by

3100: contamination of unlensed cluster member galaxies. The degree of

3101: dilution, which is proportional to the fraction of cluster membership,

3102: is particularly prominent in the central region of rich clusters, 

3103: as in the case of A1689 (see Medezinski et al. 2007). Practically, a  

3104: reliable background sample can be defined by selecting galaxies with

3105: colors redder than the cluster E/S0 sequence (see \S \ref{subsec:red}). 

3106: Figure \ref{fig:dilution} shows that  the dilution effect becomes

3107: significant when the lower (bluer) color limit of the entire red sample

3108: is decreased below a color of $\Delta(V-i')\sim 0.1$, while no signature

3109: of systematic variations is seen when the lower color limit is increased

3110: above $\Delta(V-i')\sim 0.1$, ensuring that the dilution effect is

3111: almost negligible there. Based on this, we defined our red background

3112: sample by choosing a conservative color limit as $\Delta(V-i')>0.22$.

3113: 

3114: Here we vary the lower color limit of the red sample in the interval

3115: of $[0.1,0.5]$ where the dilution effect is negligible. At the lower

3116: color limit of $\sim 0.5$, however, the number of red galaxies is

3117: decreased by about $40\%$ (see Figure \ref{fig:dilution}), when compared

3118: with our fiducial sample of $\Delta(V-i')>0.22$, leading to noisier

3119: results. 

3120: We generate red samples at the lower color limit of $0.1$,

3121: $0.15$, $0.2$, ..., $0.5$, and assess the scatter in the best-fit

3122: concentration parameter, $c_{\rm vir}$.  

3123: We find the error distribution is fairly random, with a small spread of

3124: $\Delta c_{\rm vir}\sim \pm 0.5$, corresponding to a $\sim 4\%$

3125: fractional systematic error. 

3126: 

3127: \subsubsection{Background Redshift Distribution}

3128: \label{subsubsec:sys_pz}

3129: 

3130: % redshift distribution plays a crucial role in 

3131: 

3132: Redshift information of background galaxies plays a crucial role in the

3133: determination of cluster mass profiles

3134: In order to convert the observed lensing signal into physical mass

3135: units, one needs to evaluate the mean distance ratio  

3136: $\langle D_{ds}/D_s\rangle$ over the redshift distribution of background

3137: galaxies (\S \ref{subsec:red}).  An overestimate of the source redshift

3138: will systematically lead to an underestimate of the cluster mass, and

3139: vice versa. 

3140: In this way, the uncertainty in the

3141: background redshift distribution will lead to systematic errors of the

3142: cluster mass determination. The level of uncertainty depends on the

3143: %%relative distance between the lens and the source, 

3144: lensing geometry, and is less

3145: significant for low-$z$ clusters (say, $z_d\simlt 0.2$). 

3146: For purely weak lensing based data, this effect is less important for

3147: the determination of the halo concentration, because the identification

3148: of the inner characteristic radius ($r_s$) is basically independent of 

3149: the background redshift. However, when the weak lensing measurements are

3150: combined with inner strong lensing information,

3151: this depth information becomes crucial

3152: for the determination of halo concentration as well, because it

3153: determines the relative normalization between the inner and outer

3154: profiles. That is, an overestimate of the background redshift will cause

3155: an underestimate of the surface mass density, which will increase the

3156: difference between the inner profile derived from strong lensing and the

3157: outer profile from weak lensing,

3158: leading to 

3159: an overprediction of the halo concentration. 

3160: %This degeneracy of the NFW

3161: %parameters ($c_{\rm vir}$, $M_{\rm vir}$) is clearly demonstrated in

3162: %Figure \ref{fig:joint}. 

3163: 

3164: 

3165: 

3166: Here we turn to assess the level of systematic error arising from the

3167: uncertainty in the background redshift distribution. Based on the

3168: multicolor photometry of Capak et al. (2004) in the HDF-N, we obtain

3169: a mean distance ratio of  $\langle

3170: D_{ds}/D_s\rangle = 0.693 \pm \pm 0.02$, or a distance-equivalent

3171: redshift of $z_{s,D}=0.68\pm 0.05$, 

3172: for our color-magnitude selected red background sample

3173: (\S \ref{subsec:red}; see also Medezinski et al. 2007).

3174: A good agreement has been also found using the COSMOS deep multicolor

3175: photometric catalog of Capak et al. (2007), yielding a similar depth of   

3176: $\langle D_{ds}/D_s\rangle \approx 0.703$ (Medezinski et al. 2007 in

3177: preparation), suggesting that the field-to-field variance (cosmic

3178: variance) is not significant, and as small as the statistical uncertainty

3179: obtained here.

3180: We find this level of depth uncertainty will lead to

3181: only a $\sim 1\%$ fractional systematic error of $c_{\rm vir}$.

3182: %%%

3183: Further, 

3184: %for a more conservative error estimate of the concentration, 

3185: we assign a conservative uncertainty in the 

3186: % a generous range of systematic errors in the

3187: (distance-equivalent) source redshift, $z_{s,D}=[0.7,1.0]$, and find a 

3188: fractional systematic error of about $10\%$ in the concentration

3189: parameter.  It is interesting to note that B05a obtained the best-fit

3190: concentration parameter

3191: of $c_{\rm vir}=13.7^{+1.4}_{-1.1}$ assuming a source redshift of

3192: $z_s(=z_{s,D})=1$. This concentration is slightly higher ($\sim +8\%$) than

3193: the best-fit value of $c_{\rm vir}=12.7\pm 1$ found in this work, but

3194: this level of discrepancy can be easily reconciled by the systematic

3195: error in the assumed depth of B05a:  Applying this bias correction to

3196: the results of B05a yields $c_{\rm vir} \approx 12.3$, 

3197: which agrees quite well with the present results of $c_{\rm vir}=12.7\pm

3198: 1$.  

3199: 

3200: 

3201: Lensing magnification influences the observed

3202: surface density of background galaxies (Broadhurst et al. 1995), by

3203: expanding the 

3204: observed solid angle of the background (area distortion),

3205: and decreasing the effective flux limit of the survey (flux

3206: amplification). Thus the latter effect of magnification bias may change

3207: the redshift distribution of background galaxies depending on the

3208: distance from the cluster center,

3209: which could be a potential source of the

3210: systematic errors in the determination of the halo concentration.

3211: Our red background sample, however, is highly depleted (see Figure

3212: \ref{fig:magbias}), meaning that the area distortion effect is 

3213: dominating over the flux amplification of fainter, distant background

3214: galaxies. Indeed, the unlensed count slope measured at our magnitude

3215: limit $i'=25.5$ is $s=d\log N_0(m)/dm\approx 0.22$, being fairly flat as

3216: compared to the blue sample with $s\approx 0.4$, close to the lensing

3217: invariant slope (see equation [\ref{eq:magbias}]).

3218: Consequently, relatively few fainter objects are magnified into the

3219: sample even in the central cluster region, so that 

3220: the magnification effect on the source redshift distribution

3221: is fairly negligible for the red background defined 

3222: at fainter magnitude limits

3223: For our sample,

3224: magnification at $\theta\sim 2\arcmin$ is $\mu\simeq 1+2\kappa \approx

3225: 1.2$, or about $0.2 {\rm mag}$ of increased depth, corresponding to 

3226: the fractional increase of only $\sim 5\%$ in the number of red

3227: background galaxies.

3228: Further, given 

3229: the weak dependence of the redshift distribution of faint galaxies on

3230: apparent magnitude (e.g., Medezinski et al. 2007), we do not need to

3231: take this effect into serious consideration for our red background

3232: sample. 

3233: 

3234: %increase of only $\sim 5\%$ 

3235: %The magnification bias arises because gravitational lensing changes the

3236: %apparent solid angle of the background but conserves the surface

3237: %brightness, leading to an increase or decrease of the observed 

3238: %%%Gravitational deflection of the light ray will 

3239: %Magnification bias arises because gravitational lensing changes the

3240: %solid angle of a source but conserves its surface brightness 

3241: %The magnification effect will enlarge the sky solid angle, thus

3242: %modifying the source density by a factor 1/mu, .  

3243: 

3244: Still, it is instructive to consider the potential systematic bias

3245: caused by the magnification effect on the background redshift

3246: distribution.  The net effect of depth correction is to reduce the

3247: central surface mass density of the lens, since we attribute the high

3248: lensing signal to the geometric information of the background.

3249: For purely weak-lensing based data, this will lead to a lower

3250: concentration. However, when the strong lensing information in the inner

3251: region is taken into account as well, this depth correction will further

3252: increase the difference between the inner and outer profiles derived

3253: from strong and weak lensing, respectively, thereby enhancing the

3254: concentration.  However, the amount of correction is negligible in

3255: practice when the weak lensing analysis is based on the red background

3256: galaxies as discussed above.

3257: 

3258:  

3259: 

3260: 

3261: \subsubsection{Magnification Analysis}

3262: 

3263: Here we address the systematic uncertainties arising from a particular

3264: treatment and various cuts in the weak lensing magnification analysis.  

3265: 

3266: \begin{itemize}

3267: \item[(1)]

3268: {Mask area correction} % 7\%

3269: \end{itemize}

3270: 

3271: The masking effect due to cluster member galaxies and bright foreground

3272: objects acts to reduce the

3273: apparent number of background galaxies, and this reduction increases

3274: towards the cluster center, leading to an overestimate of the central

3275: depletion signal without the masking correction. 

3276: %taken into account. 

3277: %%%%%%

3278: In the present study the mask area 

3279: of bright objects

3280: is evaluated as the area inside the ellipse of 

3281: $\nu_{\rm mask}$-times the major ({\tt A\_IMAGE}) and minor ({\tt

3282: B\_IMAGE}) axes 

3283: computed from SExtractor (see Cobb et al. 2006 for a similar

3284: discussion),  

3285: where the multiplier is chosen as $\nu_{\rm mask}=3$ so that the

3286: ellipse is visually 

3287: consistent with the isophotal detection limit in our SExtractor

3288: configuration (\S \ref{subsec:data}).

3289: Here we adopt a conservative uncertainty of $\nu_{\rm mask}=3\pm 1$ on the

3290: masking factor, and find the corresponding systematic uncertainty of

3291: $\pm 7\%$ in 

3292: the halo concentration. The lower limit on $c_{\rm vir}$ is obtained for

3293: $\nu_{\rm mask}=2$, when the mask area correction is underestimated and

3294: hence the depletion signal is overestimated.

3295: %Note that the direction of the correction for $c_{\rm vir}$ is opposite

3296: %when only weak lensing data are used (i.e., wihtout the inner strong

3297: %lensing information; see the discussion in \S \ref{subsubsec:sys_pz}).

3298: %%%%

3299: %Here we vary the value of $\nu_{\rm mask}$ in the range of 2 to 4,

3300: %and assess the corresponding uncertainties in $c_{\rm vir}$. 

3301: %For $\nu_{\rm mask}=3\pm 1$, 

3302: %As found in B05a, the mask area correction is small (less than several

3303: %percent) and negligible at large radii, but becomes

3304: %increasingly significant at $\theta\simlt 4'$.

3305: %%When $\nu_{\rm mask}=2$, the mask area 

3306: %Here we assess the uncertainties in $c_{\rm vir}$ due to a particular

3307: %choice of the mask correction multiplier. 

3308: 

3309:  

3310: 

3311: \begin{itemize}

3312: \item[(2)]

3313: {Clustering rejection}

3314: %%: 1.5\%

3315: \end{itemize}

3316: 

3317: Similarly, we adopt a conservative uncertainty of $\nu_{\rm clust}=4\pm 1$

3318: in the rejection

3319: threshold $\nu_{\rm clust}$, which has been introduced to downweight

3320: locally the

3321: intrinsic clustering noise 

3322: which otherwise perturbs the depletion signal (\S

3323: \ref{subsec:declustering}).  

3324: This yields a fractional uncertainty of only $\pm 1.5\%$ in $c_{\rm

3325: vir}$. 

3326: We note that the intrinsic clustering of background galaxies is a local

3327: effect, and 

3328: hence it does not affect significantly the radial profile fitting.

3329: 

3330: 

3331: 

3332: 

3333: 

3334: \begin{itemize}

3335: \item[(3)]

3336: {Unlensed count slope}

3337: %%: 3.5\%

3338: \end{itemize}

3339: 

3340: The conversion from the observed counts of the red background sample

3341: into the magnification bias $\delta_\mu$ (equation [\ref{eq:magbias}])

3342: depends on the slope parameter $s=d\log{N_0(m)}/dm$ of the unlensed

3343: number counts (\S \ref{subsec:mag}), 

3344: which was estimated as $s=0.22\pm 0.03$ from the outer region $\simgt

3345: 10\arcmin$ where the magnification effect is negligibly small

3346: ($\kappa, \delta_\mu \simlt 0.01$). We find that this level of

3347: uncertainty in $s$ will cause an uncertainty in $c_{\rm vir}$ of about

3348: $3.5\%$. 

3349: 

3350: 

3351: \subsubsection{Inner Boundary Condition}

3352: %% 10\%

3353: 

3354: Any mass reconstruction technique based on the gravitational shear field

3355: involves a non local process (see equation [\ref{eq:local}]), and hence

3356: it is crucial to have a proper boundary condition for an accurate

3357: determination of the cluster mass profile.  

3358: In particular, our MEM+ method is based on the ACS strong lensing

3359: information, which is incorporated as an inner boundary condition

3360: on the central pixel, $\kappa_{\rm c}$ (\S \ref{subsec:acs}). 

3361: %It is threfore important to assess the systematic errors in our mass

3362: %reconstruction introduced by uncertainties in the adopted strong lensing

3363: %mass model.  

3364: B05a showed that the combined ACS and Subaru mass profile can be well

3365: fitted by a high concentration NFW profile ($c_{\rm vir}\sim 14$) over 

3366: the full range of ACS and Subaru data, $r=[10^{-2},2]$ Mpc$/h$. However,

3367: it is also found in B05a that this high-concentration model somewhat

3368: overestimates the inner slope at $r\simlt 40$ kpc$/h$ (see Figure

3369: \ref{fig:mass}). 

3370: This model yields a central surface mass density of 

3371: $\kappa_{\rm c}(z_s=1)\approx 0.810$, which is

3372: slightly higher than, but still consistent with, the prediction based on

3373: B05b adopted in the present work, $\kappa_{\rm c}(z_s=1)=0.781\pm 0.1$,

3374: within the $1\sigma$ statistical uncertainty.   

3375: %%%%%

3376: The mass profile of A1689 has also been examined by Limousin et

3377: al. (2007) using independent weak lensing shape measurements from

3378: CFHT12K data. 

3379: %From this Limousin et al. (2007) obtained the best-fit

3380: %parameters of $c_{\rm  vir}\approx 10$ and $M_{\rm vir}\approx 1.5\times

3381: %10^{15}M_{\odot}$, 

3382: Their best-fit NFW model, however, underpredicts the observed Einstein

3383: radius (\S \ref{subsubsec:comparison}), and accordingly yields a much

3384: lower central value of

3385: $\kappa_{\rm c}(z_s=1)\approx 0.527$, which we take as the lower limit

3386: on $\kappa_{\rm c}(z_s=1)$.

3387: %%%

3388: Allowing for a conservative uncertainty of

3389: $\kappa_{\rm c}(z_s=1)=0.78^{+0.1}_{-0.25}$,

3390: corresponding to $\kappa_{\rm c}(z_{s,D}=0.68) = 0.70^{+0.09}_{-0.22}$ 

3391: for the effective depth of our red sample,

3392: we find a $\pm 10\%$ fractional systematic uncertainty in the

3393: halo concentration, $c_{\rm vir}$. 

3394: 

3395: \subsubsection{Inner Strong Lensing Information}

3396: \label{subsubsec:inner}

3397: 

3398: 

3399: %% 10%

3400: 

3401: The inner strong lensing information 

3402: %plays a crucial role in the determination of the halo

3403: %concentration parameter 

3404: provides strong constraints on the halo concentration parameter

3405: as demonstrated in Figure \ref{fig:joint}.

3406: In the present work, the ACS-derived inner mass profile of B05b

3407: is specifically used to determine the NFW halo parameters

3408: of A1689 in the strongly lensed region, $r=[10,130]$ ${\rm kpc}/h$.

3409: It is practically difficult to assess potential systematic errors 

3410: introduced in strong lensing modeling because of the complex, non-linear

3411: error propagation (B05b).

3412: Instead, here we simply estimate the level of uncertainty

3413: %%due to  the inner strong lensing model, 

3414: by a comparison with

3415: the result obtained with the model-independent constraint on the

3416: Einstein radius $\theta_{\rm E}$ (see \S \ref{subsubsec:ein}) 

3417: %$\theta_{\rm E}=45\arcsec$ for $z_s=1$,  

3418: based on multiply lensed images identified

3419: in the ACS observations of B05b.

3420: Both the strong lensing analysis of B05b and Limousin et al. (2007)

3421: yield a consistent value for the projected mass interior to

3422: $45\arcsec$ of $M_{2{\rm D}}(45\arcsec)\approx 2\times 10^{14} M_\odot$,

3423: or equivalently, $\bar\kappa(45\arcsec) = 1$ for a

3424: source redshift of $z_s=1$: i.e., $\theta_{\rm E}=45\arcsec$ at

3425: $z_s=1$. 

3426: In contrast to the fit to the inner mass profile, this Einstein-radius

3427: information provides an integrated constraint on the inner mass profile

3428: interior to $45\arcsec$, or $r\approx 100{\rm kpc}/h$ in projected

3429: radius. 

3430: %%%

3431: We find that a joint fit of the Subaru $\kappa$ map and the

3432: Einstein-radius constraint yields a slightly higher concentration of

3433: $c_{\rm vir}=14.0^{+2.5}_{-2.1}$  (see Table \ref{tab:nfwfit}),

3434: corresponding to a fractional increase of about $10\%$. 

3435: This tendency is also found for the

3436: results with the shear-based 1D mass reconstruction from the 

3437: $\zeta_{\rm c}$-statistic measurements (see Table \ref{tab:nfwfit}).

3438: %in which case a fractional increase of $20\%$ is found. We thus adopt a

3439: %conservative systematic error of $20\%$ in $c_{\rm vir}$ associated with

3440: %the strong lensing model.

3441: %%We note again this does not simply reflect the actual uncertainty 

3442: %%in the strong lensing mass model, but is likely caused by 

3443: %% error arising from the way in which the model is specified. 

3444: %% error arising from the simplification

3445: 

3446: \subsubsection{Entropic Prior}

3447: 

3448: % 10\%

3449: 

3450: A particular choice of the regularization could be a

3451: potential source of the systematic errors in the cluster mass

3452: reconstruction.  In our mass reconstructions the model parameter

3453: $m$ of the entropy prior is

3454: fixed, but the Bayesian value of the

3455: regularization parameter $\alpha$ that satisfies equation

3456: (\ref{eq:alpha}) is obtained for a given value of $m$. 

3457: When we vary the value of $m$ over a

3458: relevant range of the cluster lensing signal, $m=[0.1,0.9]$ ($m=0.5\pm

3459: 0.4$),  we find the error distribution in the resulting value of $c_{\rm

3460: vir}$ is almost random with a small spread of $\pm 10\%$.

3461: 

3462: Furthermore, a particular choice of the entropy function may lead to

3463: some systematic bias in the determination of cluster mass profiles.

3464: To check this possibility, 

3465: %here we simply compare the present results

3466: %obtained with the entropy regularization and those from other standard

3467: %reconstructions  (\S \ref{sec:massprofile}).  

3468: here we simply compare 

3469: the present results from the MEM+ reconstruction 

3470: with earlier 1D maximum-likelihood results of B05a,

3471: both of which are based on the same distortion and magnification data,

3472: and adopt the ACS-based inner boundary conditions.

3473: After the correction for the systematic bias (\S

3474: \ref{subsubsec:sys_zs}) the best-fit concentration of B05a is $c_{\rm

3475: vir}\approx 12.3$,  which is in good agreement with $c_{\rm vir}=12.7\pm

3476: 1$ obtained with the entropy regularization. Thus, it is likely that 

3477: the level of systematic uncertainty due to the particular choice of the

3478: entropy regularization is negligibly small as compared to other sources

3479: of the systematic errors. 

3480: 

3481: Our use of the entropy prior in the low S/N regime might potentially induce

3482: some slight bias in the 

3483: regularized maximum likelihood solution, and/or some slight

3484: non-Gaussianity in the error distribution, underestimating the actual

3485: error bars for the mass reconstruction and the NFW halo

3486: parameters. However, our results show good consistency between the

3487: entropy-regularized reconstructions and other standard reconstructions

3488: within the statistical uncertainties. Thus, it seems this bias is not

3489: significant for this work.

3490: 

3491: 

3492: \subsubsection{Shear Calibration Error}

3493: \label{subsubsec:calib}

3494: 

3495: A shear calibration error is one of the systematic errors that could

3496: bias the weak lensing shape measurements (Haymans et al. 2006; Massey et

3497: al. 2007) and

3498: potentially have some influence on recovered mass profiles. To assess

3499: this possibility we have measured the strength

3500: of the weak lensing signal as a function of magnitude limit for our

3501: background galaxy sample.

3502: We found no particular tendency towards a

3503: loss of the weak lensing signal with apparent magnitude

3504: for red background galaxies, which span over a wide range of sizes.

3505: This is comforting and

3506: consistent with the expectations of the model-independent

3507: KSB+ based technique for which the recovered signal should match reality

3508: within the noise. 

3509: We note that at the very weak lensing limit, our distortion

3510: measurements are quite consistent with an independent estimate of the

3511: weak lensing signal by Limousin et al. (2007).

3512: 

3513: However we have found that for blue background galaxies there is a

3514: significant loss of the signal at faint magnitudes and this raises the

3515: worrying question of unresolvable HII regions which we know do become

3516: prevalent at faint blue magnitudes, acting effectively as point

3517: sources and hence reducing the weak lensing signal. Such objects are

3518: not included in our analysis, so as not to bias our lensing measurements.

3519: The STEP project, aimed at assessing signal which may be lost in

3520: ground based data, described in Heymans et al (2006) and Massey et

3521: al. (2007), does not allow 

3522: for unresolvable sources within galaxies, as it is

3523: inherently assumed that galaxies are continuously resolvable, so that

3524: stretched HST/ACS images of faint galaxies are taken to be perfectly

3525: empirical representations of reality for the purpose of calibrating

3526: galaxies dominated by bright HII regions.

3527: 

3528: 

3529: Furthermore, we have found a good consistency between the purely

3530: shear-based results (e.g., $\zeta$-statistic based 1D reconstruction)

3531: and the results based on the combined distortion and magnification data

3532: (e.g., MEM+ results, B05a results), implying that any shear calibration

3533: error is not noticeable at the level of our analysis, otherwise we would

3534: see inconsistency with our magnification analysis.

3535: 

3536: 

3537: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3538: 

3539: \section{Summary and Discussion}\label{con}

3540: 

3541: In this paper, we have derived a projected 2D mass map of the well

3542: studied lensing cluster A1689 ($z=0.183$) based on an

3543: entropy-regularized maximum-likelihood combination of the lens

3544: magnification and distortion of red background galaxies registered in

3545: deep Subaru images.  The combination of distortion and

3546: magnification data breaks the mass sheet degeneracy inherent in all

3547: reconstruction methods based on distortion information alone.

3548: %%%

3549: The method is not restricted to the weak lensing regime but applies to

3550: the whole area outside the tangential critical curve, where

3551: non-linearity between the surface mass-density and the observables

3552: extends to a radius of a few arcminutes.  

3553: %%%

3554: The strong lensing information from ACS observations was also readily

3555: incorporated in this maximum likelihood approach (\S

3556: \ref{subsec:acs}). 

3557: We also utilized the distortion measurements to locally downweight 

3558: the intrinsic clustering noise in the magnification measurements,

3559: which otherwise perturbs the depletion signal (\S

3560: \ref{subsec:declustering}).  

3561: %%%%

3562: The resulting 2D map showed that the projected surface density of A1689

3563: is smoothly varying and symmetric, similar to the distribution of

3564: cluster members. 

3565: %%%%

3566: The 2D mass map is well fitted by the Navarro-Frenk-White model, with a

3567: continuously steepening profile, but the concentration parameter much

3568: higher than expected for its virial mass ($\sim 2\times

3569: 10^{15}M_{\odot}$),  according to the clear predictions of standard

3570: $\Lambda$CDM (Bullock et al. 2001; Neto et al. 2007).

3571: %%%%

3572: For consistency we have compared the best-fitting

3573: NFW parameters obtained from different combinations of datasets,

3574: boundary conditions, and weak lensing techniques (\S

3575: \ref{subsubsec:comparison}).  

3576: %%%

3577: We find that all of the reconstructions tested here are consistent with

3578: a virial mass in the range, $M_{\rm vir}=(1.5-2.1)\times

3579: 10^{15}M_{\odot}$, and the combined ACS and Subaru-2D mass

3580: reconstruction yields a tight constraint on the concentration parameter,

3581: $c_{\rm vir}=12.7^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$ ($c_{200}\sim 10$), improving upon the

3582: statistical accuracy of our earlier 1D analysis (B05a).

3583: %%%

3584: Very good agreement is found between the present full 2D reconstruction

3585: and the earlier 1D reconstruction (B05a), both of which are based on the

3586: same distortion and magnification measurements, supporting the

3587: assumption of quasi-circular symmetry in the projected mass distribution. 

3588: We have also explored potential sources of systematic error on the

3589: concentration parameter, such as the uncertainties in background

3590: redshift distribution, selection criteria for the red background sample,

3591: and strong lensing modeling. Taking into account all of the systematic

3592: errors as well as the statistical uncertainty, our constraint on

3593: the concentration is $c_{\rm vir}=12.7 \pm 1 ({\rm stat.}) \pm 2.8 ({\rm

3594: systematic})$. 

3595: %% where the second set of errors include the systematic uncertainties

3596: %% Spergel et al. 2003

3597: %% where the error includes random and systematic uncertainties

3598: % we assess carefully various

3599: %sources of potential systematic error in the halo concentration

3600: %parameter derived from the lensing observations.

3601: %We further explored an alternative combination of the ACS

3602: %profile with the 1D convergence profile based solely on the distortion

3603: %measurement, and obtained  

3604: 

3605: 

3606: %%% Comparison with Limousin et al. (2007) etc.

3607: For clusters well fitted by an NFW profile, the derived virial mass of

3608: a cluster and the concentration parameter can be used to find the

3609: Einstein radius $\theta_{\rm E}$, through the simple relationship 

3610: $1=\bar\kappa_{\rm NFW}(\theta_{\rm E})$ (see Appendix \ref{app:nfw}).

3611: %%%%

3612: For A1689 with $M_{\rm vir}=(2.1\pm 0.2)\times 10^{15}_{\odot}$ and

3613: $c_{\rm vir}=12.7^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$ (only statistical errors quoted),

3614: this yields an Einstein radius of 

3615: $45 \pm 6$ arcsec at $z_s=1$, or $53 \pm 7$ arcsec at $z_s=3$,

3616: in very good agreement with the mean estimated radius of $\sim

3617: 50\arcsec$, based on the locations of the multiple images (Table 2 of

3618: B05b).  

3619: %%%%

3620: The strong lensing mass model of Limousin et al. (2007), based on the

3621: multiple images identified by B05b, properly reproduces the observed

3622: Einstein radius of $45\arcsec$ at $z_s=1$,

3623: %($\bar\kappa[45\arcsec]=1$ at

3624: %$z_s=1$), or equivalently,  

3625: %$M(45\arcsec)\approx 2\times 10^{14} M_\odot$ in terms of the 

3626: %projected mass interior to $\theta_{\rm E}=45\arcsec$,

3627: consistent with the strong lensing mass model of B05b (see \S

3628: \ref{subsubsec:inner}).   

3629: %%%%

3630: In contrast, an Einstein radius of 

3631: $24\pm 11$ arcsec at $z_s=1$ is implied by the NFW fit to this cluster

3632: by Limousin et al. (2007), to independent weak lensing data from CFHT

3633: ($c_{\rm vir}\sim 9.6$, $M_{\rm vir}\sim 1.5\times 10^{15}M_\odot$; see

3634: Table \ref{tab:nfwref}, Figures \ref{fig:joint_gt} and \ref{fig:gt}). 

3635: This discrepancy may be attributed to a degree of contamination of the

3636: sample of galaxies used to define the lensed background, which, 

3637: as pointed out in B05a, can drag down the weak lensing signal 

3638: if accidentally included in the background sample, and preferentially 

3639: so at small radius (see Figure \ref{fig:gt}) where the

3640: ratio of cluster members compared with background is much higher,

3641: resulting in a shallow $g_+$ profile and hence a lower concentration

3642: fit. 

3643: 

3644: 

3645: %%% Comparison with Limousin and Halkola results

3646: Taking into account the systematic errors (\S \ref{subsec:sys}),

3647: combined ACS and Subaru constraints allow a shallower (but still steeper

3648: than theoretically expected) mass profile

3649: with $c_{\rm vir}= 9-10$, similar to the values found in Halkola

3650: et al. (2006) and Limousin et al. (2007). 

3651: This, however, does not simply mean that the discrepancy 

3652: between different lensing studies

3653: %%% in the derived NFW halo parameters

3654: %%% between the models 

3655: is fully solved: When the NFW model is normalized to reproduce the

3656: observed Einstein radius ($45\arcsec$ at $z_s=1$), then this

3657: concentration would indicate a large virial mass of 

3658: $M_{\rm vir}=(3-3.3)\times 10^{15}M_\odot$ (see Figures \ref{fig:joint}

3659: and \ref{fig:joint_gt}), which however is considerably higher than the

3660: mass estimates derived from the X-ray observations ($M_{\rm vir}\approx

3661: 10^{15}M_\odot$ in Andersson \& Madejski 2004, $M_{\rm vir}\approx

3662: 1.4\times 10^{15}M_\odot$ in Lemze et al. 2008).  

3663: The discrepancy between the present results and the results by Halkola

3664: et al. (2006) can be explained by the relative weights in the least

3665: $\chi^2$ fitting, 

3666: assigned differently to the ACS- and Subaru-based measurements,

3667: indicating slight deviation of the observed profile from the NFW

3668: predictions (see discussion in \S \ref{subsubsec:comparison}; also see

3669: discussion in Medezinski et al. 2007). 

3670: This is seen at

3671: the innermost radii $r\simlt 40{\rm kpc}/h$ (Figure

3672: \ref{fig:mass}),  where the ACS data indicate a shallower profile. 

3673: Consequently, when one prefers the innermost region to fit the data,

3674: this could lead to a lower concentration ($c_{\rm vir}=9-10$) as favored

3675: by the shallower slope in the innermost region, and to a lower value for

3676: the Einstein radius when the data at outer critical radius are less

3677: weighted.  Nonetheless, our best-fitting NFW model provides a good

3678: approximation to our data over the radii we have considered, $r=[10^{-2},

3679: 2]$ ${\rm Mpc}/h$.

3680: 

3681: 

3682: 

3683: %%% Importance of dilution 

3684: B05a demonstrate that dilution of the lensing signal is certainly the

3685: cause of the very low concentration fit ($c_{\rm vir}\sim 4.5$, Table

3686: \ref{tab:nfwref}) obtained by Bardeau et al. (2005), due to the

3687: inclusion of relatively blue cluster members in the definition of the

3688: background sample of the same 

3689: CFHT weak lensing data as Limousin et al. (2007), and for which the

3690: equivalent Einstein radius is only $\sim 4\arcsec$

3691: (at $z_s=1$, see Table \ref{tab:nfwref}).

3692: %The study by Halkola et al. (2006) comes closer to the observed radius 

3693: %with a value of $39^{-3}_{+6}$ arcsec (at $z_s=1$, see Table

3694: %\ref{tab:nfwref}),  as shown in 

3695: %Figure \ref{fig:joint_gt}, implied by their published best-fit NFW

3696: %parameters for the joint combination of the weak lensing results of B05a

3697: %and a parametric model of the strong lensing region based on the

3698: %multiple images identified in B05b. The difference here seems to be due

3699: %to the relatively higher weighting given to the strong lensing region by

3700: %Halkola et al. (2006) where the slope of the projected mass profile is

3701: %shallower than at large radius (see also Figure \ref{fig:gt}).

3702: %%%% Application of dilution 

3703: On the other hand,

3704: the dilution of the lensing signal caused by cluster members can be 

3705: used to derive the proportion of galaxies statistically belonging

3706: to the cluster by comparing the undiluted red background distortion

3707: signal with the radial distortion profile of color-magnitude space

3708: occupied by the cluster members, but including inevitable background

3709: galaxies falling in the same space (Medezinski et al. 2007). 

3710: This technique allows the light profile of the cluster to be determined in

3711: a way which is independent of the number density fluctuations

3712: in the background population, which otherwise limit the

3713: calculation of the cluster light profiles and luminosity functions

3714: from counts of member galaxies.

3715: The resulting light profile can be compared with the mass profile 

3716: to examine the radial behavior of $M/L$ (Medezinski et al. 2007).

3717: 

3718: 

3719: 

3720: %%% Lemze et al.'s X-ray analysis

3721: A recent joint X-ray and lensing analysis of A1689 by Lemze et al.

3722: (2008) also produces very similar concentration, 

3723: $c_{\rm vir}=12.2^{+0.9}_{-1}$, and virial mass, 

3724: $M_{\rm vir}\sim (1.4\pm 0.4)\times 10^{15}M_{\odot}$, 

3725: to that derived here in our analysis (Table \ref{tab:nfwref}). 

3726: This is derived from a model-independent approach to the X-ray emission

3727: profile and the projected lensing mass profile, assuming hydrostatic

3728: equilibrium, utilizing the mass profile derived in B05a.

3729: Interestingly, the observed temperature profile falls

3730: short of the predicted temperature profile derived from the joint fit

3731: and this may imply that the gas distribution is clumpy on small scales, 

3732: in the form of a higher density cold gas phase (Lemze et al. 2008).

3733: %%%%%%

3734: Moreover,

3735: this anomaly seems to be consistent with conclusions regarding 

3736: gas substructure in the recent detailed hydrodynamical simulations 

3737: of cluster gas by Kawahara et al. (2007), 

3738: implying that other similar detailed lensing-X-ray 

3739: studies should also show a similar temperature discrepancy.

3740: 

3741:  

3742: Great progress continues to be made in the detailed predictions of 

3743: $\Lambda$CDM, particularly on cluster scales where gas cooling is not a

3744: worry.  Recently the whole Millennium survey (Springel et al. 2005)  

3745: has been converted into the

3746: observer's frame following the full geodesics through the volume to

3747: simulate the effect of structure on the light received by an observer

3748: (Hilbert et al. 2007). This work has shown that although in general

3749: clusters form in overdense regions, the material associated with a

3750: given cluster in the form of extended groups and filaments outside the

3751: virial radius of the cluster is of relatively low mass contrast

3752: compared to the projected mass due to the cluster itself, and

3753: therefore lensing based projected masses of clusters are not

3754: overestimated by more that a few percent (Hilbert et al. 2007).

3755: 

3756: 

3757: 

3758: 

3759: This simulation has also been used to better define the relationship

3760: between the concentration parameter and the virial mass of halos, 

3761: over the full range of mass from galaxies up to the most massive

3762: cluster-sized halos, in the context of standard $\Lambda$CDM (Neto et al

3763: 2007). A clear prediction has emerged that most massive halos generated

3764: in these simulations have the lower concentration ($c_{\rm vir}\sim 5$),

3765: and  the cause of this is in part attributed to the generally later

3766: collapse of the more massive halos reflecting the lower mean density of 

3767: the universe. For example, at $z_{\rm vir}=0.183$, for the standard

3768: choice of cosmological parameters the criterion for virialization is

3769: $\bar\rho(<r_{\rm vir}) \sim 115 \rho_{\rm crit}(z_{\rm vir})

3770: \sim 277 \bar\rho(z_{\rm vir})$. 

3771: One possibility to achieve earlier formation of massive clusters is

3772: to allow deviation from Gaussianity of the primordial density

3773: fluctuations in the early universe (e.g., Grossi et al. 2006; Sadeh,

3774: Rephaeli, \& Silk 2007).

3775: 

3776: 

3777: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3778: %%% Halo triaxiality in general

3779: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3780: A degree of triaxiality is inevitable for collisionless

3781: gravitationally collapsed structures. Discussion of the likely effect

3782: of triaxiality on the measurements of lensing properties has been

3783: examined analytically (Oguri et al. 2005; Sereno 2007;

3784: Corless \& King 2007) and in numerical investigations (Jing \& Suto

3785: 2002; Hennawi et al. 2007).  

3786: A bias in favor of prolate structure pointed to the observer is

3787: unavoidable at some level, as this orientation boosts the projected

3788: surface mass density and hence the lensing signal. This effect 

3789: has been evaluated in the context of the CDM model and serves as a

3790: guide to the likely degree of bias which may affect lensing work.

3791: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3792: %%% Theoretical efforts to examine the triaxiality effect

3793: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3794: Hennawi et al. (2007) conducted a detailed study of the properties of 

3795: lensing cluster population identified in $\Lambda$CDM cosmological

3796: $N$-body simulations. 

3797: The level of bias in terms of the concentration

3798: %The effect of this bias in terms of the concentration

3799: parameter derived from 2D lensing measurements

3800: was explicitly estimated and found to amount to an $\sim 34\%$

3801: increase, which results from a combination of two effects, namely

3802: the orientation bias ($\sim 19\%$) due to halo triaxiality

3803: and 

3804: the selection effect towards higher 3D concentrations ($\sim 18\%$).

3805: %that favors projections along the major axis of triaxial CDM halos.

3806: The level of correction for the orientation bias is also derived from

3807: semi-analytical 

3808: representation of simulated CDM triaxial halos by Oguri et al. (2005).

3809: The anomalously high concentrations of $c_{\rm vir}\simgt 13$, such as

3810: found for A1689, CL0024+1654 (Kneib et al. 2003), and MS2137-23 (Gavazzi

3811: et al. 2003), appear inconsistent with the distribution of

3812: concentrations found in detailed simulations of Hennawi et al. (2007),

3813: which predict that only $<2\%$ of lensing clusters should have such high

3814: concentrations. 

3815: It is also unlikely that the baryonic component in these massive

3816: clusters increases the concentrations over the $\Lambda$CDM prediction

3817: for dark matter halos (see discussion in Hennawi et al. 2007, B05b, and

3818: Broadhurst \& Barkanna 2008).  

3819: 

3820: 

3821: 

3822: A chance projection of foreground/background structure along the

3823: line-of-sight can potentially influences projected lensing observations,

3824: boosting the surface mass density locally and hence the

3825: concentration. The ACS strong lensing analysis of B05b revealed the

3826: secondary mass clump in the central region of A1689 

3827: associated with a small clump of galaxies. The existence of this

3828: subclump has been suggested by earlier observations, such as 

3829: the spectroscopic study of Teague et al. (1990) and Czoske (2004),

3830: and the X-ray study of Andersson \& Madejski (2004). 

3831: No obvious substructure is visible in a large spectroscopic sample of

3832: 525 cluster members identified in Czoske (2004), in contrast to 

3833: earlier work of Teague et al. (1990) based on a smaller sample of 176

3834: identified cluster members. 

3835: %who suggested a complex dynamical

3836: %state of A1689 based on 176 identified cluster members. 

3837: %%%

3838: %%% no obvious substructure visible in

3839: %%% large sample of czoske etal 2004, something like that.

3840: Recently, this

3841: secondary mass clump has also been directly detected by the weak lensing

3842: flexion analyses by Leonard et al. (2007) and Okura et al.

3843: (2008) based on the ACS and Subaru data, respectively. However, the

3844: detailed ACS strong lensing analyses based on multiply imaged background

3845: galaxies showed that the mass contribution of the secondary mass clump

3846: is only a small fraction of the main cluster component (Figures 21 and

3847: 22 of B05b),

3848: implying a lower $M/L$ for the subclump than for the main cluster,

3849: which is tightly constrained by the geometrical positions of sets of

3850: multiply lensed images, or the location of critical curves.

3851: 

3852: 

3853: 

3854: %%%%%%%%% Practical method for examining the triaxiality

3855: In the near future, 

3856: the question of the effect of triaxiality on lensing based cluster

3857: mass profiles may be examined empirically. For example, the total

3858: X-ray luminosity or the total lensing based mass of a cluster should

3859: not depend on the orientation with respect to the line of sight,

3860: whereas the concentration parameter and the Einstein radius will be

3861: affected and hence expanded lensing studies could in principle reveal

3862: whether relaxed clusters of fixed mass or fixed X-ray luminosity tend

3863: to have consistent lensing based concentrations, or instead a broader

3864: distribution may be uncovered, with a mean concentration smaller than

3865: derived for A1689, indicating triaxiality produces a significant

3866: bias. Current indications based on several massive clusters favor the

3867: NFW profile, but with consistent concentrations

3868: (Medezinski et al. 2007, in preparation), 

3869: similar in value to A1689, underscoring the tension between 

3870: detailed lensing based mass profiles and the predictions of standard 

3871: $\Lambda$CDM.

3872: 

3873: 

3874: 

3875: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3876: %%%

3877: %%%          Acknowledgments

3878: %%% 

3879: %%%

3880: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3881: 

3882: \acknowledgments

3883: 

3884: We thank the anonymous referee for a careful reading of the manuscript

3885: and and for providing invaluable comments.

3886: We are grateful to Masahiro Takada for valuable discussions and

3887: comments. 

3888: %We thank Masahiro Takada for valuable discussions and suggestions.

3889: We thank 

3890: J.-H. Proty Wu,

3891: Elinor Medezinski,

3892: Guo-Chin Liu, 

3893: Ue-Li Pen, 

3894: and Sandor Molnar for fruitful discussions.

3895: We thank Nick Kaiser for making the IMCAT package publicly available. 

3896: KU thanks Ludovic Van Waerbeke for kindly providing

3897: his code for a maximum likelihood mass reconstruction.

3898: %We thank the Suprime-Cam team for their support during

3899: %the observation. 

3900: %KU acknowledges fruitful discussions with xxx.

3901: %KU thanks Patrick Koch for providing helpful comments.

3902: %valuable discussions.

3903: % We thank the annonymous referee for invaluable comments and suggestions

3904: % which improved the paper significantly,

3905: Part of this work is based on  

3906: data collected at the Subaru Telescope,

3907: which is operated by the National Astronomical Society of Japan.

3908: %%%

3909: %The work is partially supported by the COE program at Tohoku University.

3910: This work in part supported by 

3911: the National Science Council of Taiwan

3912: under the grant NSC95-2112-M-001-074-MY2.

3913: 

3914: 

3915: 

3916: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3917: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3918: %%%

3919: %%% Tables

3920: %%%

3921: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3922: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

3923: 

3924: %%\input{tab.tex}

3925: 

3926: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3927: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3928: %%%

3929: %%% Tables

3930: %%%

3931: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3932: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3933:  

3934: 

3935: %%% Table 1

3936: 

3937: \begin{deluxetable*}{lllll}

3938: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

3939: \tablecaption{

3940: \label{tab:memparam}

3941: Parameters used in the 2D MEM reconstruction}

3942: \tablewidth{0pt}

3943: \tablehead{

3944: \colhead{$m$ \tablenotemark{a}} &

3945: \colhead{$\alpha$ \tablenotemark{b}}  &

3946: \colhead{$N_{\rm pix}$ \tablenotemark{c}}&

3947: \colhead{$N_{\rm data}$ \tablenotemark{d}} &

3948: \colhead{$\kappa_{\rm c}$ \tablenotemark{e}} 

3949: } 

3950: \startdata

3951: %% ** Submitted Version **

3952: %% $0.5$ & $96.6$ &  $31\times 27$ & 1012 & 0.700 \\

3953:  $0.5$ & $96.2$ &  $31\times 27$ & 1012 & 0.700 \\

3954: \enddata

3955: \tablenotetext{a}{MEM model parameter.}

3956: \tablenotetext{b}{Bayesian value of $\alpha$.}

3957: \tablenotetext{c}{This includes the ACS-constrained central pixel.}

3958: \tablenotetext{d}{Number of usable measurements.}

3959: \tablenotetext{e}{ACS constraint on the central $\kappa$ pixel assuming

3960:  $\langle D_{ds}/D_s\rangle=0.693$.}

3961: \end{deluxetable*}

3962: 

3963: 

3964: %%% Table 2

3965: 

3966: \begin{deluxetable*}{lllrrrrrr}

3967: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

3968: \tablecaption{

3969: \label{tab:memmethod} 

3970: 2D MEM reconstructions 

3971: with different datasets and boundary conditions}

3972: \tablewidth{0pt}

3973: \tablehead{

3974: \colhead{Method  \tablenotemark} &

3975: \colhead{Dataset \tablenotemark{a}} &

3976: \colhead{Boundary Conditions \tablenotemark{b}}  &

3977: \colhead{$N_{\rm data}${c}} &

3978: \colhead{$\alpha$\tablenotemark{d}} &

3979: %% ** Submitted Version **

3980: %%\colhead{$F_{\rm min}$ \tablenotemark{e}} &

3981: %% ** Version 2 (revised) **

3982: \colhead{NDF \tablenotemark{e}} &

3983: \colhead{$\chi^2_{\rm min}$ \tablenotemark{f}} & 

3984: \colhead{RMS \tablenotemark{g}} &

3985: \colhead{S/N \tablenotemark{h}} 

3986: } 

3987: \startdata 

3988: %% ** Submitted **

3989: %2D MEM-S & shear           & MEM + ACS &  710 &  88.7  & 322  & 448  &

3990: %0.082 & 14.7\\ 

3991: %2D MEM & shear + magbias  &  MEM       & 1012 & 100.1  & 625  & 1039 &

3992: % 0.075 & 18.3 \\ 

3993: %2D MEM+ & shear + magbias  & MEM + ACS & 1012 &  96.6  & 651  & 1089 &

3994: % 0.076 & 19.4\\ 

3995: 2D MEM-S & shear           & MEM + ACS &  710 &  91.2  & 515 & 448  & 0.081   

3996:  & 14.4\\ 

3997: 2D MEM & shear + magbias  &  MEM       & 1012 &  97.3  & 785 & 1014 & 0.076

3998:  & 18.2 \\ 

3999: 2D MEM+ & shear + magbias  & MEM + ACS & 1012 &  96.2  & 784 & 1065 & 0.077   

4000:  & 19.4\\ 

4001: \enddata

4002: \tablecomments{

4003: The following three sets of combinations of datasets and

4004: boundary conditions are considered: 

4005: (i) 2D MEM+ method using shear and magnification

4006:  data with the ACS constraint on the central pixel, 

4007: (ii) 2D MEM method using shear

4008:  and magnification data without the central ACS constraint, 

4009: and (iii) 2D MEM-S method using shear data with the central ACS constraint. 

4010: }

4011: \tablenotetext{a}{Dataset used for weak lensing analysis.}

4012: \tablenotetext{b}{With or without the ACS constraint on 

4013: the central pixel in the strong lensing region.}

4014: \tablenotetext{c}{Number of usable measurements.}

4015: \tablenotetext{d}{Bayesian value of $\alpha$ ($m=0.5$).}

4016: %\tablenotetext{e}{Minimum functional value of $F$.}

4017: \tablenotetext{e}{Classical number of degrees of freedom, ${\rm NDF} \equiv N_{\rm data}-N_{\rm good}$ (see equation [\ref{eq:alpha}]).}

4018: \tablenotetext{f}{Minimum functional value of $\chi^2$.}

4019: \tablenotetext{g}{Average rms error of $\kappa$ in the observed region

4020:  $(30'\times 24')$.}

4021: \tablenotetext{h}{Detection significance of the convergence signal

4022:  defined by equation (\ref{eq:sn}).}

4023: \end{deluxetable*}

4024: 

4025: 

4026: %%% Table 3

4027:  

4028: \begin{deluxetable*}{lllrr}

4029: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

4030: \tablecaption{

4031: \label{tab:mrec}

4032: Summary of the Methods for Mass Profile Reconstructions

4033: }

4034: \tablewidth{0pt}

4035: \tablehead{

4036: \colhead{Method  \tablenotemark{a}} &

4037: \colhead{Dataset \tablenotemark{b}} & 

4038: \colhead{Boundary Conditions \tablenotemark{c}}  &

4039: \colhead{$(\theta_{\rm min},\theta_{\rm max})$ \tablenotemark{d}} & 

4040: \colhead{$N_{\rm bin}$ \tablenotemark{e}}

4041: } 

4042: \startdata 

4043: $\zeta_{\rm c}$-statistic  & tangential shear &  $\bar{\kappa}_b=4\times

4044:  10^{-3}$\tablenotemark{\dag} & ($1',16'$) & 9 \\%& 6.6\\

4045: 2D MEM-S  & shear          & MEM + ACS & ($1',18'$) & 10 \\

4046: 2D MEM  & shear + magbias  & MEM       & ($1',18'$) & 10 \\

4047: 2D MEM+  & shear + magbias & MEM + ACS & ($1',18'$) & 10 \\

4048: Subaru 1D\tablenotemark{*} & tangential shear + magbias & ACS  &  ($1',18'$) & 10 \\% & 6.9\\

4049: \enddata

4050: \tablenotetext{a}{Weak lensing mass reconstruction method. All methods

4051:  apply to the non-linear but subcritical regime.}

4052: \tablenotetext{b}{Dataset used for weak lensing analysis.}

4053: \tablenotetext{c}{With or without the ACS constraint on the central

4054:  pixel in the strong lensing region.}

4055: \tablenotetext{d}{Lower and upper radial limits.}

4056: \tablenotetext{e}{Number of radial bins in the range of $(\theta_{\rm

4057:  min},\theta_{\rm max})$.}

4058: \tablenotetext{\dag}{This employs an outer boundary condition 

4059: %that the

4060: on the 

4061: mean convergence $\bar\kappa_b$ within 

4062: $16'<\theta<19'$. The mean background level $\bar\kappa_b$ is calculated

4063:  to be $\bar\kappa_b=4\times 10^{-3}$ using the ACS+Subaru-1D

4064:  best-fit NFW model by B05a.

4065:  }

4066: \tablenotetext{*}{1D maximum likelihood analysis by B05a 

4067: based on the joint measurements of weak lensing distortion and depletion profiles.}

4068: \end{deluxetable*}

4069: 

4070: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4071: %% Table 4

4072: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4073: 

4074: \begin{deluxetable*}{llllllll}

4075: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

4076: \tablecaption{

4077: \label{tab:nfwfit}

4078: Summary of the best-fitting NFW parameters

4079: for Subaru weak lensing observations

4080: } 

4081: \tablewidth{0pt} 

4082: \tablehead{ 

4083: \colhead{Method  \tablenotemark{a}} &

4084: \colhead{Data} &

4085: \colhead{ACS \tablenotemark{b}} &

4086: \colhead{ER \tablenotemark{c}} &

4087: \colhead{$M_{\rm vir}$ \tablenotemark{d}} & 

4088: \colhead{$c_{\rm vir}$\tablenotemark{e}}  &

4089: \colhead{ $\chi^2_{\rm min}/{\rm dof}$\tablenotemark{f}} & 

4090: \colhead{ $\theta_{\rm E}$\tablenotemark{g}} 

4091: } 

4092: \startdata 

4093: %%%

4094: tangential shear & 1D $g_+$ &--- &--- & $1.51^{+0.27}_{-0.24}$ &

4095:  $20.0^{+8.8}_{-5.3}$ &  5.0/8 (8) & 50.9 \\

4096: tangential shear & 1D $g_+$ &--- & yes & $1.59^{+0.24}_{-0.22}$ &

4097:  $15.7^{+3.4}_{-2.5}$ &  9.1/9 (9) & 44.5 \\

4098: $\zeta_{\rm c}$-statistic & 1D $\kappa$  & --- & --- & $1.48 \pm 0.27 $ & $27.3^{+2.7}_{-19.3}$  &  5.2/7

4099:  (7) & 59.1 \\

4100: $\zeta_{\rm c}$-statistic & 1D $\kappa$ &--- & yes & $1.51^{+0.25}_{-0.22}$ & $16.5^{+4.0}_{-3.1}$

4101:  &  11.4/8 (8) & 44.8  \\ 

4102: $\zeta_{\rm c}$-statistic & 1D $\kappa$ &yes & --- & $1.91^{+0.24}_{-0.20}$ & $13.7^{+1.5}_{-1.3}$

4103:  &  12.3/19 (19) & 45.3  \\ 

4104: 2D MEM-S & 2D $\kappa$ & --- & --- & $1.48^{+0.20}_{-0.18} $ & $14.1^{+10.3}_{-4.8}$ & 361/834 (406)

4105:  & 38.2 \\

4106: 2D MEM-S  & 2D $\kappa$ & yes & --- &$1.75^{+0.17}_{-0.16} $ & $14.6^{+1.3}_{-1.1}$ & 369/846 (418)

4107:  & 45.1 \\

4108: 2D MEM   & 2D $\kappa$ & --- &--- & $1.60^{+0.21}_{-0.17} $ &

4109:  $14.9^{+11.9}_{-5.2}$ & 287/834 (478) & 42.7 \\  

4110:  2D MEM   & 2D $\kappa$ & yes & --- & $1.81^{+0.21}_{-0.14} $ &

4111:  $14.3^{+1.2}_{-1.1}$  & 294/846 (490) & 45.1 \\ 

4112: 2D MEM+  & 2D $\kappa$ & ---  & --- & $1.76^{+0.20}_{-0.17} $  & $15.5^{+7.4}_{-4.2}$

4113:  &  323/836 (423) & 51.0 \\ 

4114: %% new:: aho-kprof.txt, aho-kprof.cov

4115: 2D MEM+  & 2D $\kappa$ & --- & yes & $1.93^{+0.22}_{-0.19} $  &  $14.0^{+2.5}_{-2.1}$

4116:  &  387/837 (424) & 46.4 \\

4117: 2D MEM+  & 2D $\kappa$ & yes & --- & $2.10 \pm 0.17 $         &  $12.7^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$

4118:  &  327/848 (435) & 45.3 \\

4119: Subaru 1D\tablenotemark{*} & 1D $\kappa$ & --- & --- &

4120:  $1.69^{+0.30}_{-0.28}$ & $\le 30$ & $5.36/8$ (6) & 66.9  \\ 

4121: Subaru 1D\tablenotemark{*} & 1D $\kappa$ &yes & --- & $1.93\pm 0.20$  &

4122:  $13.7^{+1.4}_{-1.1}$ & $13.3/20$ (18) & 45.4  \\ 

4123: \enddata

4124: %%%%

4125: \tablecomments{

4126: A flat prior of $c_{\rm vir}\le 30$ is adopted in the model fitting.

4127: }

4128: \tablenotetext{a}{Mass reconstruction method (see Table

4129:  \ref{tab:mrec}).}

4130: \tablenotetext{b}{Fitting with or without the ACS-derived inner mass

4131:  profile (\S \ref{subsubsec:acs}).}

4132: \tablenotetext{c}{Fitting with or without the strong lensing

4133:  Einstein-radius (ER) constraint, $\theta_{\rm E}=45\arcsec$ at $z_s=1$

4134:  (\S \ref{subsubsec:ein}).} 

4135: \tablenotetext{d}{Virial mass and $1\sigma$ error in units of $10^{15}M_{\odot}$.}

4136: \tablenotetext{e}{Concentration parameter, $c_{\rm vir}=r_{\rm 

4137:  vir}/r_s$, and $1\sigma$ error.}

4138: \tablenotetext{f}{Values in parentheses refer to effective degrees of

4139:  freedom excluding upper limit bins with $\kappa<0$.}

4140: \tablenotetext{g}{Einstein radius in units of arcsec for a fiducial

4141:  source at $z_s=1$, defined as $1=\bar\kappa(\theta_{\rm E})$.}

4142: \tablenotetext{*}{Taken from B05a. A fiducial source redshift of $z_s=1$

4143:  is assumed in B05a.}

4144: \end{deluxetable*}

4145:  

4146: 

4147: %% Table 5 :: Mvir-Cvir constraints from the literature

4148: 

4149:  

4150: \begin{deluxetable*}{llllllll}

4151: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

4152: \tablecaption{

4153: \label{tab:nfwref}

4154: Comparison between best-fitting NFW parameters 

4155: for A1689 from different observations and methods

4156: %by different authors

4157: %taken from the literature

4158: } 

4159: \tablewidth{0pt} 

4160: \tablehead{ 

4161: \colhead{Reference} &

4162: \colhead{Method \tablenotemark{a}} &

4163: \colhead{$M_{\rm vir}$ \tablenotemark{b}} &

4164: \colhead{$c_{\rm vir}$ \tablenotemark{c}} &

4165: \colhead{$M_{200}$ \tablenotemark{d}} & 

4166: \colhead{$c_{200}$\tablenotemark{e}}  &

4167: \colhead{ $\theta_{\rm E}$\tablenotemark{f}} & 

4168: \colhead{ Remarks}

4169: } 

4170: \startdata 

4171: King, Clowe, \& Schneider 2002 &  WL   & $1.0$ & $6.1$ & $0.84$ & $4.8$  &

4172:  11  & ESO/MPG\\%% (fit to the shear pattern)\\

4173: %%% Clowe 2003 

4174: Clowe 2003      &  WL   & $1.3$ & $9.9$ & $1.1 $ & $ 7.9$  &

4175:  22  & ESO/MPG\\%% (shear profile)\\

4176: %%% Bardeau 2005

4177: Bardeau et al. 2005 &  WL & $ 1.72^{+0.8}_{-0.6} $  & $ 4.5^{+0.6}_{-0.4} $ 

4178:                           & $ 1.41^{+0.63}_{-0.47}$ & $3.5^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$ 

4179:  & 3.5  & CFH12K\\

4180: %%% ACS strong lensing

4181: %%% Mvir=2.62e15Msun/h

4182: B05b      & SL   & $3.7$ & $8.2^{+2.1}_{-1.8}$ & $3.2$ & $6.5^{+1.9}_{-1.6}$  &

4183:  44  & ACS\\

4184: %%% BTU05

4185: B05a      & SL+WL   & $1.93\pm 0.20$ & $13.7^{+1.4}_{-1.1}$ & $1.72\pm

4186:  0.19 $ & $ 10.9^{+1.1}_{-0.9}$  &

4187:  45  & ACS + Subaru ($\kappa$ profile)\\

4188: %%% Halkola+ 2006 (SL)::      

4189: %%% r200 = 2.82Mpc/h70 +/- 0.11 

4190: %%% C200 = 6.0 \pm 0.5

4191: %%% M200 = 2.13954868143346 [1.89881528994971 -2.39981469631041]1e15Msun/h

4192: %%% M200 = 3.05e15Msun/h70

4193: %%% Mvir = 2.4902 [2.1973--2.8116] = 3.55e15Msun/h70

4194: %%% Cvir = 7.592  [6.9746 -- 8.2089]

4195: Halkola et al. 2006  & SL 

4196:  & $3.55\pm 0.4$  & $7.6 \pm 0.6$ 

4197:  & $3.05\pm 0.3$  & $6.0 \pm 0.5$  & 37 & ACS  \\

4198: %% Halkola+ 2006 (SL + WL):: 

4199: %% r200=2.55Mpc/h70 \pm 0.07 

4200: %% C200=7.6 \pm 0.5

4201: %% M200(1e15Msun/h)   = 1.5799 [1.4552 -- 1.71584] 

4202: %% Mvir(1e15Msun/h)   = 1.8093 [1.6599 -- 1.9736]

4203: %% Cvir               = 9.5647 [8.9486 -- 10.181]

4204: %% rE: 38.889220 [35.474812 -- 44.9133]-3.414408 +6.024080

4205: Halkola et al. 2006  & SL+WL    

4206:   &  $2.58 \pm 0.2$  & $9.6 \pm 0.6 $  

4207:   &  $2.25 \pm 0.2$  & $7.6 \pm 0.5 $   & 39  

4208:  & ACS + Subaru ($g_+$ profile) \\

4209: %% Bardeau+ 2007

4210: %% M200 = 1.379e15Msun/h \pm 0.238  [1.141--1.617]

4211: %% C200 = 4.28 \pm 0.82

4212: %% Mvir = 1.65e15 Msun/h [1.3449 -- 1.9760]

4213: %% Cvir = 5.466 [4.449-6.480]

4214: Bardeau et al. 2007  & WL 

4215:  & $2.35\pm 0.4$  & $5.5  \pm 1.0$ 

4216:  & $1.97\pm 0.3$  & $4.28 \pm 0.8$  &

4217:  12 & CFH12K \\%%(fit to the shear pattern) \\

4218: %%% Limousin et al. 2007

4219: %%% M200 = 0.924 e15Msun/h [0.784--1.064]

4220: %%% C200 = 7.6\pm 1.6      [6.0 -- 9.2]

4221: %%% Mvir = 1.51^{+0.25}_{-0.24}1e15Msun/h70

4222: %%% Mvir=1.057e15Msun/h [0.88768--1.2384E]

4223: %%% Cvir=9.6\pm 2.0     [7.6--11.6]]

4224: %%% rE  = 24.087869     [12.741739 -- 35.662879]-11.34+11.574931

4225: Limousin et al. 2007  & WL 

4226:  & $1.51^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$  & $9.6 \pm 2.0$ 

4227:  & $1.32\pm 0.2$         & $7.6 \pm 1.6$  

4228:  & 24 & CFH12K \\%%(shear profile) \\

4229: %%% Lemze et al. 2007 (X-ray)

4230: %%% Mvir = 1.5661e15Msun/h

4231: %%% Cvir = 12.2   [11.2--13.1]

4232: %%% M200 = 1.3875e15Msun/h

4233: %%% C200 = 9.741  [8.9282--10.554]

4234: Lemze et al. 2008\tablenotemark{*} & SL+WL+X

4235:  &  $2.23\pm 0.6^\dag$ &  $12.2^{+0.9}_{-1}$ 

4236:  &  $1.98$ &  $9.7 \pm 0.8$      

4237:  & 45 & ACS + Subaru + Chandra\\  

4238: %%% This work

4239: %%% M200=1.086e15Msun/h [1.086-1.384]

4240: %%% C200=10.709 [7.96-15.17]]

4241: This work  & WL & $  1.97 \pm 0.20 $  & $13.4^{+5.4}_{-3.3}$ &

4242:  $1.76 \pm 0.20$  & $10.7^{+4.5}_{-2.7}$       &

4243:  45 & Subaru ($\kappa$ map) \\

4244: %%% 

4245: %%%

4246: This work  & SL+WL & $2.10 \pm 0.17$  & $12.7^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$ &

4247:  $ 1.86 \pm 0.16$ & $ 10.1^{+0.8}_{-0.7} $  &

4248:  45 & ACS + Subaru ($\kappa$ map) \\

4249: \enddata

4250: \tablecomments{

4251: A similar table of best-fitting NFW parameters 

4252: is found in Comerford \& Natarajan 2007 (Table 1) 

4253: which also include the results for other clusters as well as A1689.

4254: }

4255: \tablenotetext{a}{Analysis method.}

4256: \tablenotetext{b}{Virial mass $M_{\rm vir}$ and $1\sigma$ error in units

4257:  of $10^{15}M_{\odot}$.} 

4258: \tablenotetext{c}{Virial concentration $c_{\rm vir}=r_{\rm vir}/r_s$ and

4259:  $1\sigma$ error.} 

4260: \tablenotetext{d}{$M_{200}$ and $1\sigma$ error in units of

4261:  $10^{15}M_{\odot}$.} 

4262: \tablenotetext{e}{Specific concentration $c_{200}=r_{200}/r_s$ and 

4263:  $1\sigma$ error.}

4264: \tablenotetext{f}{Einstein radius in units of arcsec for a fiducial

4265:  source at $z_s=1$, defined as $1=\bar\kappa(\theta_{\rm E})$.} 

4266: \tablenotetext{*}{Based on the Chandra X-ray data and the 

4267: projected mass profile from the joint ACS and Subaru-1D analysis by

4268:  B05a.  Hydrostatic equilibrium assumed.}

4269: \tablenotetext{\dag}{Note that the outermost radius point of Lemze et

4270:  al. (2008)  is at $1.5 {\rm Mpc}/h$, which is smaller than the virial

4271:  radius of A1689, $r_{\rm vir}\approx 2 {\rm Mpc}/h$.

4272: As compared to the NFW-based prediction in the table,

4273: their model-independent

4274: reconstruction of the total mass density $\rho(r)$ 

4275: %%with an extrapolation index of $-3$ 

4276: yields a virial mass of 

4277: $M_{\rm  vir} = (1.4\pm 0.4)\times 10^{15} M_\odot$,

4278: assuming an extrapolation index of -3.}

4279: \end{deluxetable*} 

4280:  

4281: 

4282: %% Table 6 :: systematic uncertainties

4283: 

4284:  

4285: \begin{deluxetable*}{llr}

4286: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

4287: \tablecaption{

4288: \label{tab:sys}

4289:  Sources of systematic error and their effects on the determination of

4290:  the halo concentration parameter $c_{\rm vir}$.

4291: } 

4292: \tablewidth{0pt} 

4293: \tablehead{ 

4294: \colhead{Source of error} &

4295: \colhead{Uncertainty range} &

4296: \colhead{Fractional error in $c_{\rm vir}$} 

4297: } 

4298: \startdata 

4299:  Lower color limit for the red sample & $[0.1,0.5]$ & 4\% \\

4300:  Source redshift\tablenotemark{*}   & $z_{s,D}=[0.7,1]$ & 10\% \\

4301:  Mask area correction  & $\nu_{\rm mask}=3\pm 1$ & 7\% \\

4302:  Clustering noise rejection & $\nu_{\rm clust}=4\pm 1$ & 1.5\% \\

4303:  Slope of unlensed number counts\tablenotemark{\dag} & $s=0.22\pm 0.03$ & 3.5\%  \\

4304:  Inner boundary condition & $\kappa_{\rm c}(z_s=1)=0.78^{+0.1}_{-0.25}$ &

4305:  10\% \\ 

4306:  Strong lensing modeling\tablenotemark{\dag\dag}  & B05b, ER & 10\% \\

4307:  Entropy prior & $m=0.5\pm 0.4$ & 10\% \\ 

4308: \enddata

4309: \tablecomments{

4310:  The systematic errors are presented in fraction of $c_{\rm vir}=12.7$

4311:  derived from a joint fit to the ACS-based inner $\kappa$ profile of

4312:  B05b and the Subaru-based $\kappa$ map reconstructed with the MEM+ method.

4313: }

4314: \tablenotetext{*}{Effective source redshift $z_{s,D}$ equivalent to the

4315:  mean distance ratio $\langle D_{ds}/D_s\rangle$ defined by equation

4316:  (\ref{eq:zD}).} 

4317: \tablenotetext{\dag}{$s=d\log N(m)/dm$.} 

4318: \tablenotetext{\dag\dag}{Einstein-radius constraint ($\theta_{\rm

4319:  E}=45\arcsec$ for $z_s=1$) used instead of the ACS inner mass profile

4320:  of B05b.} 

4321: \end{deluxetable*} 

4322:  

4323:    

4324: \clearpage

4325: 

4326:    

4327: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4328: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4329: %%%

4330: %%% Figures

4331: %%%

4332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4333: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4334: 

4335: 

4336: %% Use the figure environment and \plotone or \plottwo to include

4337: %% figures and captions in your electronic submission.

4338: %% To embed the sample graphics in

4339: %% the file, uncomment the \plotone, \plottwo, and

4340: %% \includegraphics commands

4341: %%

4342: %% If you need a layout that cannot be achieved with \plotone or

4343: %% \plottwo, you can invoke the graphicx package directly with the

4344: %% \includegraphics command or use \plotfiddle. For more information,

4345: %% please see the tutorial on "Using Electronic Art with AASTeX" in the

4346: %% documentation section at the AASTeX Web site,

4347: %% http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX.

4348: %%

4349: %% The examples below also include sample markup for submission of

4350: %% supplemental electronic materials. As always, be sure to check

4351: %% the instructions to authors for the journal you are submitting to

4352: %% for specific submissions guidelines as they vary from

4353: %% journal to journal.

4354: 

4355: 

4356: %% This example uses \plotone to include an EPS file scaled to

4357: %% 80% of its natural size with \epsscale. Its caption

4358: %% has been written to indicate that additional figure parts will be

4359: %% available in the electronic journal.

4360: 

4361: 

4362: 

4363: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 1

4364: 

4365: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4366:  \begin{center}

4367:   \includegraphics[width=60mm, angle=270]{f1.ps}

4368:  \end{center}

4369: \caption{

4370: The quadrupole PSF anisotropy field as measured from

4371: stellar ellipticities before and after the PSF anisotropy correction.

4372: The left panel shows the raw ellipticity field of stellar objects,

4373: and the right panel shows the residual ellipticity field after

4374: the PSF anisotropy correction.

4375: The orientation of the sticks indicates the position angle of

4376: the major axis of stellar ellipticity, whereas the length is

4377:  proportional to the modulus of stellar ellipticity. A stick with the

4378:  length of $5\%$ ellipticity is indicated in the top right of the right

4379:  panel. 

4380: }

4381: \label{fig:anisopsf1}

4382: \end{figure*}

4383: 

4384: 

4385: 

4386: 

4387: 

4388: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 2

4389: 

4390: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4391:  \begin{center}

4392:   \includegraphics[width=60mm, angle=270]{f2.ps}

4393:  \end{center}

4394: \caption{

4395: Stellar ellipticity distributions before and after the PSF anisotropy 

4396: correction. The left panel shows the raw ellipticity components 

4397: $(e_1^*,e_2^*)$ of stellar objects, and the right panel shows

4398: the residual ellipticity components $(\delta e_1^*, \delta e_2^*)$

4399: after the PSF anisotropy correction.

4400: }

4401: \label{fig:anisopsf2}

4402: \end{figure*}

4403: 

4404: 

4405: 

4406: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 3

4407: 

4408: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4409:  \begin{center}

4410:   \includegraphics[width=80mm]{f3.ps}

4411:  \end{center}

4412: \caption{

4413: Averaged

4414: shear correction factor, $\langle P_g^{\rm s} \rangle$,

4415: as a function of object size, $r_g$.

4416: The horizontal error bar represents the size of the bin ($\Delta r_g=1$ 

4417:  pixel), 

4418: and the vertical error bar represents the {\it rms} scatter in 

4419: the smoothed scalar correction factor, $\langle P_g\rangle$.

4420: }

4421: \label{fig:Pg}

4422: \end{figure*}

4423: 

4424: 

4425: 

4426: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 4

4427: 

4428: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4429:  \begin{center}

4430:   \includegraphics[width=70mm,angle=270]{f4.ps}

4431:  \end{center}

4432: \caption{

4433: \label{fig:dilution}

4434: Top panel:

4435: mean distortion strength averaged over a wide radial range of $1\arcmin

4436:  < \theta < 18\arcmin$,

4437: done separately for the blue and red galaxy samples.

4438: No area weighting is used here to enhance the effect of dilution in the

4439:  central cluster region.

4440: %in order to

4441: %establish the boundaries of the color distribution free of cluster members. 

4442: Shown are the measurements of the tangential component ($g_+$)

4443: with open squares, and those of the $45{\rm deg}$-rotated component

4444:  ($g_\times$).  

4445: %%%

4446: On the right ({\it red}), the square symbols show

4447: that $g_+$ drops rapidly when the bluer limit of the entire red sample

4448: is decreased below a color indicated by the vertical dashed line

4449: which lies $+0.22$ mag  redward of the cluster sequence.

4450: %%%%

4451: This sharp decline marks the point at which the red sample encroaches on

4452: the E/S0 sequence of the cluster. 

4453: For galaxies with colors bluer than the cluster seqeuence, cluster

4454: members are present along with  background galaxies. Consequently, the

4455:  mean lensing strengh of the blue sample, as shown on the left ({\it

4456:  blue}), is systematically lower than that of the red sample.

4457: Bottom panel: the respective numbers of galaxies as a function of color

4458:  limit, contained in the range

4459:  $1\arcmin <\theta < 18\arcmin$ in the red  ({\it right}) and the blue

4460:  ({\it left}) samples.

4461: } 

4462: \end{figure*}

4463: 

4464: 

4465: 

4466: 

4467: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 5

4468: 

4469: 

4470: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4471:  \begin{center}

4472:   \includegraphics[width=70mm, angle=270]{f5.ps}

4473:  \end{center}

4474: \caption{Gravitational reduced-shear field in A1689 obtained from shape

4475:  distortions of the red background galaxies, smoothed with a

4476:  Gaussian with ${\rm FWHM} = 2'$ for visualization purposes.

4477: A stick with the length of $20\%$ ellipticity is indicated in the top

4478:  right corner. 

4479: The shaded circle indicates the FWHM of the Gaussian.

4480: The coordinate origin is at the optical center (see Figure

4481:  \ref{fig:image}). 

4482: }

4483: \label{fig:shear}

4484: \end{figure*}

4485: 

4486: 

4487: 

4488: 

4489: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 6

4490: 

4491: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4492:  \begin{center}

4493:    \includegraphics[width=60mm, angle=270]{f6.ps}

4494:  \end{center}

4495: \caption{

4496: Distribution of the lensing magnification bias  $n/n_0$

4497: measured from a red-galaxy sample in the background of A1689, 

4498: smoothed with a Gaussian 

4499:  with ${\rm FWHM} = 2'$ for visualization purposes.

4500: The shaded circle indicates the FWHM of the Gaussian.}

4501: \label{fig:magbias}

4502: \end{figure*}

4503:   

4504: 

4505: 

4506: 

4507: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 7

4508: 

4509: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4510:  \begin{center}

4511:    \begin{tabular}{cc}

4512:    \includegraphics[width=65mm,angle=270]{f7a.ps} &

4513:    \includegraphics[width=65mm,angle=270]{f7b.ps}\\

4514:   \end{tabular}

4515:  \end{center} 

4516: \caption{

4517: Left panel:

4518: The projected mass distribution $\kappa$ of A1689 

4519: on a grid of $31\times 27$ pixels

4520: reconstructed 

4521: from an entropy-regularized, maximum-likelihood combination of

4522: %from a maximum entropy combination of 

4523:  Subaru shape distortion and

4524: number-count depletion

4525: data of red background galaxies. 

4526: ACS strong lensing constraints are used to determine the

4527: convergence value 

4528: at the central pixel 

4529: that falls in the strong

4530: lensing region.

4531: %%%%

4532: The pixel width is $1.4$ arcmin.

4533: The observing region is limited to the central $30'\times 24'$,

4534: covering a projected area of $3.9 \times 3.1$ ${\rm Mpc}^2/h^2$,

4535: while the field size for the reconstruction is $43\farcm 4\times 37\farcm 8$.

4536: %%%

4537: Overlayed up on the image is the reconstructed spin-2 gravitational

4538:  shear field. A stick with the length of $5\%$ shear is 

4539: indicated in the top right corner.

4540: The north is to the top, and the east is to the left.

4541: Right panel: 

4542: distribution of the reconstruction errors for the 

4543: convergence $\kappa$ 

4544: calculated using the maximum entropy method.

4545: The uncertainties are given by the square root of the diagonal part 

4546: of the covariance matrix.

4547: \label{fig:rawkappa}

4548: }

4549: \end{figure*}

4550: 

4551: 

4552: 

4553: 

4554: 

4555: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 8

4556: 

4557: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4558:  \begin{center}

4559:    \includegraphics[width=120mm]{f8_lower.ps}

4560:  \end{center} 

4561: \caption{

4562: Contours ({\it thick}) of the  

4563: dimensionless surface mass density $\kappa$ 

4564: smoothed with a Gaussian of ${\rm FWHM=1\farcm 4'}$,

4565: superposed on the

4566: $V+i'$ pseudo-color image of A1689.

4567: The image size is $\approx 30'\times 25'$,

4568: covering a projected area of $3.9\times 3.2$

4569: ${\rm Mpc}^2/h^2$ at $z=0.183$.

4570: The lowest contour

4571:  and the contour interval are $0.05$.

4572:  North is to the top and east is to the left.

4573: }

4574: \label{fig:image}

4575: \end{figure*}

4576: 

4577: 

4578: 

4579: 

4580: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 9

4581: 

4582: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4583:  \begin{center}

4584:    \includegraphics[width=150mm]{f9_lower.ps}

4585:  \end{center}  

4586: \caption{

4587: Comparison of the reconstructed lensing fields and the

4588: cluster galaxy distributions in A1689.

4589: Top: reconstructed convergence $

4590: \kappa$ ({\it left}) and magnification bias

4591:  $\mu^{2.5s-1}$ ({\it right}) fields.

4592: %smoothed with a Gaussian of ${\rm FWHM}=2'$.

4593: Bottom:

4594: %distributions of 

4595: observed $i'$-band surface luminosity ({\it left}) and number ({\it right}) 

4596: density distributions of  $(V-i')$-selected 

4597: member galaxies with $i'<23$ ABmag.

4598: % in A1689,

4599: %smoothed with a Gaussian of ${\rm FWHM}=2'$.

4600: All images are smoothed with a Gaussian of ${\rm FWHM}=2'$.

4601: The field size is $30'\times 24'$. North is to the top,

4602: east to the left.

4603: %%%

4604: The contours show the 

4605: Gaussian smoothed convergence distribution

4606: shown  in the top-left panel.

4607: %as the  surface luminosity and number density maps. 

4608: %smoothed with a Gaussian of ${\rm FWHM}=2'$.

4609: The lowest contour level and the contour interval are $0.05$.

4610: %$\Delta\Sigma_m \approx 2.4\times h 10^{14} M_{\odot} {\rm Mpc}^{-2}$.

4611: %with contours levels

4612: For each panel the color scale is linear, and 

4613: ranges from $0\%$--$100\%$ of the peak value.

4614: }

4615: \label{fig:lmap}

4616: \end{figure*}

4617: 

4618:   

4619: 

4620: 

4621: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 10

4622: 

4623: 

4624: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4625:  \begin{center}

4626:   \includegraphics[width=100mm, angle=270]{f10.ps}

4627:  \end{center} 

4628: \caption{

4629: Mass profiles of A1689 

4630: obtained by a radial projection of 

4631: the 2D $\kappa$ map

4632: (see Figure \ref{fig:rawkappa}) 

4633: reconstructed from an entropy-regularized 

4634: maximum likelihood combination of 

4635: Subaru distortion and depletion measurements.

4636: All of the profiles are scaled to a fiducial source redshift of 

4637: $z_s=1$.

4638: %%%%

4639: The square and triangle symbols

4640: represent the results with (2D MEM+) and without (2D MEM) 

4641: ACS strong lensing constrains on the central mass density,

4642: respectively.

4643: %%

4644: The error bars are highly correlated in the different bins.

4645: %Downwards-pointing arrows 

4646: %are used  where the lower error bar drops below zero.

4647: %%%

4648: %When the ACS constraints are  not incorporated 

4649: %in the mapmaking,

4650: Without the central ACS constraint,

4651: central $\kappa$-bins at $\theta\simlt 4'$ are 

4652: slightly underestimated ($\sim 10\%$), but the two profiles are

4653: overall in good agreement within the statistical uncertainties.

4654: %%%

4655: The solid curve shows the best-fitting NFW profile

4656: for the 2D $\kappa$ map (2D MEM+) combined with the ACS-derived

4657: inner mass profile.

4658: %the mass profile with the ACS constraints (2D MEM+).

4659: %%%%

4660: For comparison

4661: an NFW model based on the ACS+Subaru 1D analysis (B05a)

4662: %on the 1D ACS data (B05b) and 

4663: %combined Subaru distortion/depletion data (B05a)

4664: is shown as a dashed curve.

4665: %The dashed curve shows 

4666: %the best-fitting NFW model 

4667: %from the combined ACS+Subaru-1D analysis (B05a).

4668: } 

4669: \label{fig:kprof_mem}

4670: \end{figure*}

4671:  

4672: 

4673:  

4674: 

4675: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 11

4676: 

4677: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4678:  \begin{center}

4679:   \includegraphics[width=100mm, angle=270]{f11.ps}

4680:  \end{center} 

4681: \caption{

4682: Comparison of 

4683: mass profiles from MEM-reconstructed $\kappa$ maps

4684: based on different combinations of Subaru datasets and boundary conditions.

4685: %%%

4686: All of the profiles are scaled to a fiducial source redshift of $z_s=1$.

4687: The square and triangle  symbols represent the results from the

4688: combined distortion and depletion measurements,

4689: with (MEM+) and without (MEM) the 

4690: ACS constraint on the mean surface mass density

4691: in the central pixel, respectively.

4692: %%% 

4693: The crosses show the results from the distortion data with

4694: the central ACS constraint (MEM-S).

4695: %%%

4696: The model curves are shown for comparison as in 

4697: Figure \ref{fig:kprof_mem}.

4698: The mass profile from the distortion data alone ({\it crosses})

4699: shows a slight negative dip of $\kappa\sim -0.01$

4700: at $6'\simlt \theta \simlt 10$ due to spurious boundary effects. 

4701: %due to incorrect 

4702: %boundary condition in the biased rich cluster field.

4703: %The 1D $\zeta_{\rm c}$-based mass profile

4704: %increases continously 

4705: %from the outer boundary towards the center, but lies

4706: %systematically below the MEM+ reconstruction with the

4707: %ACS inner boundary condition.

4708: } 

4709: \label{fig:kprof_3mem}  

4710: \end{figure*}

4711:  

4712: 

4713: 

4714: 

4715: 

4716: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 12

4717: 

4718: 

4719: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4720:  \begin{center}

4721:   \includegraphics[width=100mm, angle=270]{f12.ps}

4722:  \end{center} 

4723: \caption{

4724: %Importance of non-linear corrections in 

4725: %the 

4726: Shear-based 1D mass reconstruction

4727: utilizing the $\zeta_{\rm c}$-statistic.

4728: As an outer boundary condition,

4729: the mean background density $\bar\kappa_b$

4730: in the range $16'\simlt \theta\simlt 19'$ is set to

4731: $\bar\kappa_b=4\times 10^{-3}$ according to the ACS+Subaru-1D best-fit

4732:  NFW model (B05a).

4733: %%%

4734: The square symbols represent the results

4735: with the non-linear corrections. The triangle symbols 

4736: show the reconstruction with linear approximation.

4737: The mass profiles are scaled to a fiducial source redshift

4738: of $z_s=1$.

4739: Decorrelated error bars are shown.

4740: Downwards-pointing arrows 

4741: are used  where the lower error bar drops below zero.

4742: %%%

4743: Without the non-linear corrections, central bins are underestimated

4744: by $\sim 15\%$ at maximum.

4745: %%%%

4746: The solid curve shows 

4747: an NFW profile with a high concentration, $c_{\rm vir}=30$,

4748: matching well the overall profile obtained with the non-linear

4749: corrections.

4750: %the best-fitting NFW profile 

4751: %with high concentration $c_{\rm vir}=30$

4752: %for the $\kappa$ profile obtained with the non-linear corrections.

4753: %%%%

4754: For comparison

4755: an NFW model 

4756: %from on the 1D analysis (B05a)

4757: based on 

4758: the combined 

4759: ACS and Subaru distortion and depletion profiles (B05a)

4760: is shown as a dashed curve.

4761: }

4762: \label{fig:zeta2kappa} 

4763: \end{figure*}

4764: 

4765: 

4766: 

4767: 

4768: 

4769: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 13

4770: 

4771: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4772:  \begin{center}

4773:   \includegraphics[width=100mm, angle=270]{f13.ps}

4774:  \end{center} 

4775: \caption{

4776: Comparison of 

4777: model-independent

4778: mass profiles of A1689.

4779: All of the profiles are scaled to a fiducial source redshift of 

4780: $z_s=1$.

4781: %%%%

4782: The filled circles represent the results

4783: based on the 2D $\kappa$ map 

4784: reconstructed from an entropy-regularized maximum-likelihood combination

4785: of Subaru distortion and depletion data,

4786: with the ACS constraint on the mean surface mass density

4787: in the central pxiel (MEM+).

4788: %using the ACS constraint on the central mass density.

4789: %based on the MEM-reconstructed 2D $\kappa$ map using 

4790: %the combined Subaru distortion and depletion data

4791: %and the ACS constraints on the central mass density.

4792: The error bars are correlated.

4793: %(shear)

4794: %(magnification bias) 

4795: %measurements.

4796: %%%%

4797: The open triangles 

4798: represent the mass profile from

4799: the non-linear $\zeta_{\rm c}$-statistic measurements 

4800: based on averaged tangential distortion data.

4801: Decorrelated error bars are shown.

4802: %%%

4803: The filled triangles and circles show the results from the ACS strong

4804: lensing analysis (B05b) and

4805: %The filled circles with error bars 

4806: %represent the mass profile from 

4807: %the Subaru weak lensing analysis 

4808: %with the 1D reconstruction method

4809: from the Subaru 1D weak lensing analysis

4810: based on the combined distortion and depletion profiles (B05a).

4811: %tangential distortion and depletion measurements (B05a).

4812: %Downwards-pointing arrows 

4813: %are used  where the lower error bar drops below zero.

4814: %%%% 

4815: %The solid curve shows 

4816: %the best-fitting NFW profile for the combined ACS+Subaru data

4817: %by BTU05 ($M_{\rm vir}=1.93\times 10^{15} M_{\odot}, c_{\rm

4818: % vir}=13.7$).

4819: The solid curve shows 

4820: the best-fitting NFW profile for the MEM-reconstructed

4821: 2D $\kappa$ map (MEM+).

4822: The 1D- and 2D-based NFW models 

4823: from the respective combined ACS+Subaru data

4824: (B05a) are also shown as solid and dashed curves, respectively.

4825: For comparison 

4826: an NFW profile with a low concentration, $c_{\rm vir}=5$,

4827: normalized to the observed Einstein radius ($\theta_{\rm E}=45''$), 

4828: is shown as a dotted curve.

4829: The low concentration model ({\it dotted}) predicted for $\Lambda$CDM

4830: clearly overestimates the outer profile constrained by 

4831: the Subaru weak lensing observations. 

4832: %%%

4833: The mass profiles are all 

4834: in remarkable agreement 

4835: over the full range of radii up to $\sim 2 {\rm Mpc}/h$.

4836: }

4837: \label{fig:mass}

4838: \end{figure*}

4839: 

4840: 

4841: 

4842: 

4843: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 14

4844: 

4845: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4846:  \begin{center}

4847:    \includegraphics[width=30mm, angle=270]{f14a.ps}\\

4848:    \includegraphics[width=30mm, angle=270]{f14b.ps}\\

4849:    \includegraphics[width=30mm, angle=270]{f14c.ps}

4850:  \end{center} 

4851: \caption{

4852: Joint constraints on the NFW model parameters,

4853: $(c_{\rm vir}, M_{\rm vir})$, derived from 

4854: gravitational lensing observations of A1689.

4855: %Subaru weak lensing

4856: %observations of A1689. 

4857: %%%

4858: %The left panel shows 

4859: Left panels show

4860: the $68\%$, $95\%$,

4861: and $99.7\%$ confidence levels 

4862: ($\Delta\chi^2=2.3$,  $6.17$, and $11.8$)

4863: in the $(c_{\rm vir}, M_{\rm vir})$-plane 

4864: for the 2D $\kappa$ map reconstructed from 

4865: Subaru weak lensing observations.

4866: %for the 2D $\kappa$ map reconstructed from an entropy-regularized

4867: %maximum likelihood combination of Subaru distortion and depletion data

4868: %(MEM+).

4869: Right panels show the same confidence levels but for the joint

4870: ACS+Subaru-2D NFW fitting, incorporating the inner mass profile

4871: ($10{\rm kpc}/h \simlt r \simlt 180 {\rm kpc}/h$)

4872: constrained by ACS strong-lensing observations by B05b.

4873: The cross in each panel shows 

4874: the best-fit set of the NFW model parameters.

4875: %the best-fitting model parameters.

4876: The top, middle, and bottom panels 

4877: correspond to the results 

4878:  based on the 2D MEM+, MEM, and MEM-S

4879:  reconstructions,

4880: %from Subaru weak lensing observations, 

4881: respectively (see Table \ref{tab:memmethod}).

4882: %%%%

4883: The virial mass $M_{\rm vir}$ is well constrained by the Subaru data 

4884: alone, while the Subaru constraint on the concentration 

4885: $c_{\rm vir}$ is rather weak.

4886: The complementary ACS observations, when combined with the Subaru

4887: observations, significantly narrow down the uncertainties on $c_{\rm

4888:  vir}$, placing stringent constraints on the inner mass profile.

4889: In each panel the observed constraints on the Einstein radius

4890: ($\theta_{\rm E}\simeq 45$\arcsec at $z_s= 1$)

4891: are shown as a dashed curve.

4892: } 

4893: \label{fig:joint}

4894: \end{figure*}

4895:  

4896: 

4897: 

4898: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 15

4899: 

4900: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4901:  \begin{center}

4902:   \includegraphics[width=100mm, angle=270]{f15.ps}

4903:  \end{center} 

4904: \caption{

4905: Joint constraints on the NFW model parameters,

4906: $(c_{\rm vir}, M_{\rm vir})$

4907: obtained from the Subaru tangential shear ($g_+$)

4908: profile of A1689 (see Figure 1 of B05a).

4909: %%%

4910: The cross shows the best-fitting set of the NFW parameters, and 

4911: the contours show the $68\%$, $95\%$, and $99.7\%$ confidence levels  

4912: ($\Delta\chi^2=2.3$,  $6.17$, and $11.8$) in the $(c_{\rm vir}, M_{\rm

4913:  vir})$-plane. 

4914: The observed constraints on the Einstein radius,

4915: $\theta_{\rm E}\simeq 45$\arcsec at $z_s = 1$, are shown as a dashed

4916:  curve. The dotted curve shows the $c_{\rm vir}-M_{\rm vir}$

4917: relation for $\theta_{\rm E}=24\arcsec$ at $z_s=1$.

4918: %%%

4919: The triangle symbol shows the best-fit set of

4920: $(c_{\rm vir}, M_{\rm vir})$ for the combined ACS and Subaru-2D (MEM+)

4921:  results. The square and circle show the best-fit sets of $(c_{\rm vir},

4922:  M_{\rm vir})$  

4923: from the combined strong and weak lensing analysis of  Halkola et

4924:  al. (2006) and the weak lensing analysis of Limousin et al. (2007),

4925:  respectively. 

4926: }  

4927: \label{fig:joint_gt} 

4928: \end{figure*}

4929:  

4930:  

4931: 

4932: %%%%%%%%%%%%% Figure 16

4933: 

4934: \begin{figure*}[!htb]

4935:  \begin{center}

4936:   \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth, angle=270]{f16.ps}

4937:  \end{center} 

4938: \caption{

4939: \label{fig:gt}

4940: Tangential distortion profile $g_+(\theta)$ ({\it square}, upper 

4941:  panel) from the Subaru weak lensing analysis of the red background sample

4942:  (B05a).  The solid curve shows

4943:  the best-fit NFW profile derived from the joint strong and weak lensing

4944:  analysis of ACS and Subaru observations (this work), incorporating full

4945:  distortion  and magnification information.

4946: The Einstein radius constraint ({\it triangle}) of

4947:  $\theta_{\rm  E}=45\arcsec$ ($z_s=1$), determined from multiply lensed

4948:  images in ACS  observations (B05b), is translated to the corresponding

4949:  depth 

4950: %%$\langle  D_{ds}/D_s\rangle\approx 0.693$

4951: of the Subaru red background sample using the ACS+Subaru-2D NFW 

4952:  model ({\it solid}), and added to the distortion profile ($g_+=1$), 

4953:  marking the point of maximum distortion. 

4954: The ACS+Subaru-2D NFW model ({\it solid}) fits well with the combined

4955:  ACS  and Subaru distortion information over the full range of data,

4956:  $r=[80,2000] {\rm  kpc}/h$, but somewhat overpredicts the outer

4957:  distortion profile at $\theta \simgt 9\arcmin$ ($r\simgt 1.2{\rm

4958:  Mpc}/h$).

4959: %%%% 

4960: Also shown with the dashed curve is the best-fit NFW profile from the

4961:  CFHT weak lensing analysis of Limousin et al. (2007), 

4962: which, in contrast, is in good agreement with the Subaru outer profile

4963:  at $\theta\simgt 4\arcmin$, 

4964: %%($r\simgt 500 {\rm kpc}/h$), 

4965: but underpredicts

4966: significantly the inner distortion profile and hence the Einstein radius.

4967: The dotted curve shows an NFW profile of Halkola et al. (2006)

4968:  for a simultaneous fit to their ACS inner mass profile and the Subaru

4969:  distortion profile of B05a shown here, but with a different weighting

4970:  that prefers the inner strong-lensing based profile where the data

4971:  imply a shallower slope (see Figure \ref{fig:mass}).

4972: %%%

4973:  The lower panel shows

4974:   the radial profile of the $45^\circ$ rotated component

4975:  $g_\times(\theta)$ for the same Subaru red background sample

4976:  (B05a). The $\times$-component of the red galaxy sample is consistent

4977:  with a null signal at all radii, indicating the reliability the Subaru

4978:  distortion  analysis. 

4979: } 

4980: \end{figure*}

4981:  

4982: 

4983: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4984: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4985: %%%

4986: %%% Appendix

4987: %%%

4988: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4989: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  

4990: 

4991: \appendix

4992: 

4993:  

4994:    

4995: \section{Discretized Estimator for the Lensing Convergence}

4996: \label{app:kappad}        

4997:   

4998: In this Appendix, we aim to derive an expression 

4999: for the discrete convergence profile  

5000: %in terms of the   

5001: using the  

5002: weak lensing 

5003: aperture densitometry 

5004: $\zeta_{\rm c}(\theta)$

5005: given by 

5006: equation (\ref{eq:zeta}).   

5007: %We then derive the azimuthally averaged convergence, 

5008: %$\kappa(\theta)$,  

5009: %from the cumulative mass estimator,

5010: %$\zeta_{\rm c}(\theta)$.

5011: %%%%

5012: In the continuous limit,

5013: the averaged convergence $\bar\kappa(\theta)$

5014: and the convergence $\kappa(\theta)$ 

5015: are related by

5016: \begin{eqnarray}

5017: \bar{\kappa}(\theta)&=&\frac{2}{\theta^2}\int_0^{\theta}

5018: \!d\ln\theta'\theta'^2\kappa(\theta'),\\

5019: \kappa(\theta) &=&

5020:  \frac{1}{2\theta^2}\frac{d(\theta^2\bar{\kappa})}{d\ln\theta}.

5021: \end{eqnarray}

5022: For a given set of annular radii $\theta_m$

5023: $(m=1,2,...,N)$,

5024: discretized estimators can be written in the following way:

5025: \begin{eqnarray}

5026: \label{eq:avkappa_d}

5027: \bar\kappa_m &\equiv&

5028: \bar{\kappa}(\theta_m)=

5029: \frac{2}{\theta_m^2}\sum_{l=1}^{m-1}

5030: \Delta\ln\theta_l

5031: %\frac{\Delta\theta_m}{\left<\theta_m\right>}

5032: %%% 

5033: \bar\theta_l^2

5034: \kappa(\bar\theta_l),\\

5035: %

5036: \label{eq:kappa_d}

5037: \kappa_l&\equiv&

5038: \kappa(\bar\theta_l) =

5039: % \frac{ 

5040: %\theta^2_{l+1}\bar\kappa_{l+1}-

5041: %\theta^2_{l}  \bar\kappa_l

5042: %}

5043: %{2\bar\theta_l^2 \Delta\ln\theta_l}

5044: %\equiv \alpha^{l}_2\bar\kappa_{l+1}

5045: %-\alpha^l_1\bar\kappa_l

5046: \alpha^l_2\bar\kappa_{l+1}-\alpha^l_1\bar\kappa_l

5047: \ \ \ \ \ (l=1,2,...,N-1),

5048: \end{eqnarray}

5049: where 

5050: \begin{equation} 

5051: \alpha_1^l = \frac{1}{2\Delta\ln\theta_l} 

5052: \left( 

5053:   \frac{\theta_{l}}{ \overline{\theta}_l }

5054: \right)^2, \, \,  

5055: %%

5056: \alpha_2^l = \frac{1}{2\Delta\ln\theta_l} 

5057: \left(\frac{\theta_{l+1}}{ \overline{\theta}_l }\right)^2,

5058: \end{equation}

5059: with

5060: $\Delta\ln\theta_l \equiv (\theta_{l+1}-\theta_l)/\bar\theta_l$

5061: and $\bar\theta_l$

5062: being the area-weighted center of the $l$th

5063: annulus defined by $\theta_l$ and $\theta_{l+1}$;

5064: in the continuous limit, we have

5065: \begin{eqnarray}

5066: \bar\theta_l

5067: &\equiv& 

5068: 2\int_{\theta_l}^{\theta_{l+1}}\!d\theta'\theta'^2/

5069: (\theta_{l+1}^2-\theta_{l}^2)\nonumber\\ 

5070: &=&

5071: \frac{2}{3}

5072: \frac{\theta_{l}^2+\theta_{l+1}^2+\theta_{l}\theta_{l+1}}

5073: { \theta_{l}+\theta_{l+1} }. 

5074: \end{eqnarray} 

5075:  

5076: The technique of the aperture densitometry

5077: (Fahlman et al. 1994; Clowe et al. 2000) allows us

5078: to measure the azimuthally averaged convergence $\bar\kappa(\theta)$

5079: up to an additive constant $\bar{\kappa}_b$, corresponding to 

5080: the mean convergence in the outer background annulus

5081: with inner and outer radii of $\theta_{\rm inn}$ and $\theta_{\rm out}$,

5082: respectively (\S \ref{subsec:zeta}):

5083: \begin{equation}

5084: \label{eq:z2k}

5085: \bar\kappa(\theta)=

5086: \zeta_{\rm c}(\theta)

5087: +\bar\kappa_b.

5088: \end{equation}

5089: Substituting equation (\ref{eq:z2k}) into equation (\ref{eq:kappa_d})

5090: yields the desired expression 

5091: as

5092: \begin{equation}

5093: \kappa(\theta_l)=\alpha^{l}_2\zeta_{\rm c}(\theta_{l+1})

5094: -\alpha^l_1\zeta_{\rm c}(\theta_l)

5095: + (\alpha_2^l-\alpha_1^l)\bar\kappa_b.

5096: \end{equation}

5097: 

5098: 

5099: \section{The NFW Lens Model}

5100: \label{app:nfw}

5101: 

5102: The NFW universal density profile 

5103: has a two-parameter functional form as

5104: \begin{eqnarray}

5105:  \rho_{\rm NFW}(r)= \frac{\rho_s}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2} \label{eq:nfw}

5106: \end{eqnarray}

5107: where $\rho_s$ is a characteristic inner density, and $r_s$ is a

5108: characteristic inner radius.

5109: The virial properties are related 

5110: %%%

5111: In stead of using $\rho_s$ and $r_s$, 

5112: we introduce for an NFW halo

5113: the virial mass $M_{\rm vir}$

5114: and the concentration parameter,

5115: $c_{\rm vir}\equiv r_{\rm vir}/r_s$, defined as the ratio of the

5116: virial radius $r_{\rm vir}$ to the scale radius.

5117: The virial mass and virial radius are related through the

5118: following equation:

5119: \begin{eqnarray}

5120: \label{eq:mvirrvir}

5121: M_{\rm vir} = \frac{4\pi}{3}\bar{\rho}(z_{\rm vir})\Delta_{\rm

5122: vir}r_{\rm vir}^3, 

5123: \end{eqnarray}

5124: where

5125: $\Delta_{\rm vir}$

5126: is the mean overdensity with respect to the mean cosmic density

5127: $\bar\rho(z_{\rm vir})$

5128: %$\bar{\rho}(z_{\rm vir}) = \Omega_m(z_{\rm vir})\rho_{\rm crit}(z_{\rm vir})$ 

5129: at the virialization epoch $z_{\rm vir}$,

5130: predicted by the dissipationless spherical

5131: tophat collapse model (Peeebles 1980; Eke, Cole, \& Frenk 1996). 

5132: We assume the cluster redshift $z_d$ is

5133:  equal to the cluster virial redshift $z_{\rm vir}$.

5134: We use the following fitting formula in a flat 3-space with cosmological

5135: constant (see Oguri, Taruya, \& Suto 2001):

5136: \begin{eqnarray}

5137: \Delta_{\rm vir} &=& 18 \pi^2 (1+0.4093 \omega_{\rm vir}^{0.9052}), 

5138: \end{eqnarray}

5139: where $\omega_{\rm vir}\equiv 1/\Omega_m(z_{\rm vir})-1$.

5140: 

5141: 

5142: 

5143: %%%

5144: The inner density $\rho_s$ can be then

5145: expressed in terms of other virial properties of the NFW halo:

5146: \begin{equation}

5147: \rho_s = \bar{\rho}(z_{\rm vir}) 

5148: \frac{\Delta_{\rm vir}}{3}\frac{c_{\rm vir}^3}{\ln(1+c_{\rm vir})-

5149: c_{\rm vir}/(1+c_{\rm vir})}.

5150: \end{equation}

5151: %where $\rho_{\rm cr}$ is the

5152: %critical density of the universe at the cluster redshift $z_d$,

5153: %and $r_s$ is the NFW scale radius.

5154: %%%

5155: Hence, for a given cosmological model and a halo virial redshift,

5156: we can specify the NFW model with the halo virial mass

5157: $M_{\rm vir}$ and the halo concentration parameter $c_{\rm vir}$.

5158: 

5159: For an NFW profile, it is useful to decompose the convergence 

5160: $\kappa(\theta)$ and the

5161: averaged convergence $\bar{\kappa}(\theta)$ as

5162: \begin{eqnarray}

5163: \kappa_{\rm NFW}(x) &=& \frac{b}{2} f(x),\\

5164: \bar{\kappa}_{\rm NFW}(x) &=& \frac{b}{x^2}g(x),

5165: \end{eqnarray}

5166: where $b=4\rho_s r_s/\Sigma_{\rm crit}(z_d,z_s)$ is the dimensionless

5167:  scaling convergence, 

5168:  $x=\theta/(r_s/D_d)$ is the dimensionless angular radius,

5169: and $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ are dimensionless functions. 

5170: We have analytic expressions for $f(x)$ and $g(x)$

5171: as (Bartelmann 1996):

5172: \begin{eqnarray}

5173: \label{eq:nfw_f}

5174: f(x) &=&

5175: \left\{

5176:   \begin{array}{ll}

5177:   \frac{1}{1-x^2}

5178:    \left(

5179:     -1+ \frac{2}{\sqrt{1-x^2}} {\rm arctanh}\sqrt{\frac{1-x}{1+x}}

5180:    \right)  & \ \ \ (x<1), \\

5181: \frac{1}{3} & \ \ \ (x=1), \\

5182: %%

5183:   \frac{1}{x^2-1}

5184:   \left(

5185:    +1- \frac{2}{\sqrt{x^2-1}} \arctan\sqrt{\frac{x-1}{x+1}}  

5186:   \right)  & \ \ \ (x>1),

5187:   \end{array}

5188: \right. \\

5189: %%%

5190: \label{eq:nfw_g}

5191: g(x) &=& \ln\left(\frac{x}{2}\right)

5192: +

5193: \left\{

5194:   \begin{array}{ll}

5195:   \frac{2}{\sqrt{1-x^2}} {\rm arctanh}\sqrt{\frac{1-x}{1+x}}

5196:    & \ \ \ (x<1), \\

5197:  1 & \ \ \ (x=1),\\

5198:   \frac{2}{\sqrt{x^2-1}} \arctan \sqrt{\frac{x-1}{x+1}} 

5199:    & \ \ \ (x>1).

5200:   \end{array}

5201: \right. 

5202: \end{eqnarray}

5203: The tangential shear $\gamma_{+, {\rm NFW}}(\theta)$ is then 

5204: evaluated by

5205: \begin{equation}

5206: \gamma_{+,{\rm NFW}}(\theta) = \bar\kappa_{\rm NFW}(\theta)-\kappa_{\rm

5207:  NFW}(\theta). 

5208: \end{equation}

5209: 

5210: For a given source redshift $z_s$, the Einstein radius

5211: is then readily calculated by $1=\kappa_{\rm NFW}(\theta)$;

5212: or more explicitly, 

5213: using equation (\ref{eq:nfw_g}) we have

5214: \begin{equation}

5215: \theta_{\rm E}^2 =  b \theta_s^2

5216: g(\theta_{\rm E}/\theta_s),

5217: %\theta_{\rm E}^2 =  b\left(\frac{\theta_{\rm vir}}{c_{\rm vir}}\right)^2

5218: %g(\frac{c_{\rm vir}\theta_{\rm E}}{\theta_{\rm vir}})

5219: \end{equation}

5220: where $\theta_s\equiv r_s/D_d=r_{\rm vir}/(c_{\rm vir}D_d)$ 

5221: is the angular size of the 

5222: NFW scale radius.

5223: This equation for $\theta_{\rm E}$ can be solved

5224: numerically, for example, by the Newton-Raphson method.

5225: 

5226: 

5227:  

5228: 

5229: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5230: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5231: %%%

5232: %%% References 

5233: %%%

5234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5236: 

5237: 

5238: 

5239: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

5240: 

5241: % X-ray

5242: \bibitem{andersson}

5243: 	Andersson, K. E. \& Madejski, G. M. 2004, 

5244: 	\apj, 607, 190

5245: 

5246: \bibitem{Bacon00}

5247: 	Bacon, D.~J., Refregier, A.~R., Ellis, R.~S. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 625

5248: 

5249: \bibitem{baltz07}

5250: 	Baltz, E.~A., Marshall, P., Oguri, M. 2007, astro-ph/0705.0682

5251: 

5252: \bibitem{BARD1689}

5253: 	Bardeau, S. et al. 2005,

5254: 	\aap, 434, 433 

5255: 

5256: \bibitem{bardeau07}

5257: 	Bardeau, S.,

5258: 	Soucail, G.,

5259: 	Kneib, J.-P.,

5260: 	Czoske, O.,

5261: 	Ebeling, H.,

5262: 	Hudelot, P.,

5263: 	Smail, I.,

5264: 	Smith, G.~P.,

5265: 	2007, \aap, 470, 449

5266: 

5267: \bibitem[Bartelmann(1995)]{bartelmann95}

5268: 	Bartelmann, M. 1995, \aap, 299, 11 

5269: 

5270: \bibitem{review} 

5271: 	Bartelmann, M., \& Schneider, P. 2001, Phys.Rep., 340, 291

5272: 

5273: \bibitem[Bertin, Arnouts (1996)]{bertin96}

5274: 	Bertin, E., \& Arnouts, S. \ 1998, A\&AS, 117, 393 

5275: 

5276: 

5277: \bibitem{BridleMEM}

5278: 	Bridle, S.~L., Hobson, M.~P., Lasenby, A.~N., \& Saunders,

5279: 	R. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 895

5280: 

5281: %1e0657

5282: \bibitem[Brada${\check {\rm c}}$ et al. 2006]{bra06} Brada${\check

5283: 				       {\rm c}}$, M. et al. 2006, ApJ,

5284: 				       652,  937.

5285: 

5286: \bibitem{BTP}

5287: 	Broadhurst, T., Taylor, A.~N., \&

5288: 	Peacock, J.~A. 1995, \apj, 438, 49

5289: 

5290: \bibitem{BA1689} 

5291: 	Broadhurst, T., et al. 2005, \apj, 621, 53  

5292: 	(Broadhurst et al. 2005b, B05b)

5293: 

5294: \bibitem{BA1689wl}  

5295: 	Broadhurst, T., Takada, M., Umetsu, K.,

5296: 	Kong, X., Arimoto, N., Chiba, M.,  \& Futamase, T. 2005, 619,

5297: 	L143 (Broadhurst et al. 2005a, B05a)

5298: 

5299: \bibitem{bb2008}

5300: 	Broadhurst, T. \& Barkana, R. 2008, submitted to \mnras

5301: 	(arXiv:astro-ph/0801.1875) 

5302: 

5303: 

5304: \bibitem[]{Bullock}

5305: 	Bullock, J.~S., Kolatt, T.~S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, R.~S., 

5306: 	Kravtsov, A.~V., Klypin, A.~A., Primack, J.~R.,  Dekel, A. 2001, 

5307: 	\mnras, 321, 559

5308: 

5309: \bibitem[{{Capak} {et~al.}(2004)

5310: 	{Capak}, {Cowie}, {Hu}, {Barger}, {Dickinson},

5311: 	{Fernandez}, {Giavalisco}, {Komiyama}, 

5312: 	{Kretchmer}, {McNally}, {Miyazaki},

5313: 	{Okamura}, \& {Stern}}]{2004AJ....127..180C}

5314: 	{Capak}, P. {et~al.} 2004, \aj, 127, 180

5315: 

5316: \bibitem[]{capak2007}

5317: 	Capak, P. et al. 2007, \apjs,  172, 99

5318: 

5319: 

5320: \bibitem{Clowe00}

5321: 	Clowe, D., 

5322: 	Luppino, G.~A., 

5323: 	Kaiser, N., \&

5324: 	Gioia, I.~M. 2000, \apj, 539, 540

5325: 

5326: \bibitem{Clowe01}

5327: 	Clowe, D. \& Schneider, P. 2001, \aap, 379, 384

5328: 

5329: %% Masking area

5330: \bibitem{Cobb}

5331: 	Cobb, B. E., Bailyn, C. D., van Dokkum, P. G., 

5332: 	\& Natarajan, P. 2006, \apjl, 651, L85

5333: 

5334: 

5335: \bibitem{comeford07}

5336: 	Comerford, J.~M. \& Natarajan, P. 2007, \mnras, 379, 190

5337: 

5338: \bibitem{corless}

5339: 	Corless, V.~L. \& King, L.~J. 2007, 

5340: 	\mnras, 380, 149

5341: 

5342: \bibitem{crittenden02}

5343: 	Crittenden, R.~G., atarajan, P., Pen, U.-L., Theuns, T. 2002,

5344: 	\apj, 568, 20

5345: 

5346: 

5347: %%dm

5348: \bibitem[Eke, Cole, \& Frenk 1996]{eke96} 

5349: 	Eke, V. R., Cole, S. \& Frenk,

5350: 	C. S. 1996, \mnras, 282, 263.

5351: 	

5352: 

5353: %%wl

5354: \bibitem[]{Erben et al. (2001)}

5355: 	Erben, T., Van Waerbeke, L., Bertin, E., Mellier, Y., Schneider, P.

5356: 	2001, A\&A, 366, 717

5357: 

5358: \bibitem[]{Fahlman et al. (1994)}

5359: 	Fahlman, G., Kaiser, N., Squires, G., Woods, D., 1994, \apj, 437, 56

5360: 

5361: \bibitem[Gavazzi et al.(2003)]{gavazzi03}

5362: 	Gavazzi, R., Fort, B., Mellier, Y., Pello, R., 

5363: 	\& Dantel-Fort, M.

5364: 	2003, \aap, 403, 11

5365: 

5366: % substructure

5367: \bibitem{girardi1997}

5368: 	Girardi, M., 

5369: 	Fadda, D.,

5370: 	Escalera, E.,

5371: 	Giuricin, G.,

5372: 	Mardirossian, F.,

5373: 	\& Mezzetti, M. 1997, \apj, 490, 56

5374: 

5375: % non gaussian

5376: \bibitem{grossi}

5377: 	Grossi, M.,

5378: 	Dolag, K.,

5379: 	Branchini, E.,

5380: 	Matarrese, S. \& Moscardini, L. 2006, \mnras, 382, 1261

5381: 

5382: 

5383: % CFH12K

5384: %\bibitem{gavazzi04}	

5385: %	Gavazzi, R., Mellier, Y., Fort, B.,

5386: %	Cuillandre, J.-C., Dantel-Fort, M. 2004,

5387: %	\aap, 422, 407

5388: 

5389: % N-body

5390: %\bibitem{ghigna2000}

5391: %	Ghigna, J.  et al. 2000, \apj, 544, 616

5392: 

5393: 

5394: % cosmic shear

5395: %\bibitem{Hamana03} 

5396: %	Hamana, T. et al. 2003, \apj, 597, 98

5397: 

5398: \bibitem{STEP1}

5399: 	Heymans, C. et al. 2006, \mnras, 368, 1323 

5400: 

5401: \bibitem{halkola07}

5402: 	Halkola, A.

5403: 	Seitz, S.,

5404: 	\& Pannella, M. 2006, \mnras, 372, 1425

5405: 

5406: \bibitem{hennawi2007}

5407: 	Hennawi, J. F., 

5408: 	Dalal, N., Bode, P., Ostriker, J. P. 2007, \apj, 654, 714

5409: 

5410: \bibitem{hilbert07}

5411: 	Hilbert, S., White, S.~D.~M.,

5412: 	Hartlap, J., Schneider, P. 2007, \mnras,

5413: 	382,121

5414: 

5415: \bibitem{hobson98}

5416: 	Hobson, M.~P., Lasenby, A.XN. 1998, 

5417: 	\mnras, 298, 905

5418: 

5419: % HST CL 1358+62 

5420: \bibitem{hoekstra98}

5421: 	Hoekstra, H., Franx, M., Kuijken, K., \& Squires, G. 1998,

5422: 	\apj, 504, 636				       

5423: 

5424: % CFHTLS cosmic shear

5425: %\bibitem{hoekstra07}

5426: %	Hoekstra, H. et al. 2007, \apj, 647, 116

5427: 

5428: \bibitem[Hudson, Gwyn, Dahle \& Kaiser]{hud98}

5429: 	Hudson, M. J., Gwyn, S. D. J., Dahle, H. \&  Kaiser, N., 1998, 

5430: 	\apj, 503, 531.

5431: 

5432: 

5433: \bibitem{jingsuto2000}

5434: 	Jing, Y. P., \& Suto, Y. 2000, \apjl, 529, L6

5435: 

5436: \bibitem{johnston}

5437: 	Johnston, D. E. et al. 2007, arxiv:astro-ph/0709.1159

5438: 

5439: 

5440: \bibitem{KS93}

5441: 	Kaiser, N., \& Squires, G. 1993, ApJ, 404, 441

5442: 

5443: \bibitem[Kaiser 1995]{kai95a} 

5444: 	Kaiser, N. 1995, \apj, 439, L1.

5445: 

5446: \bibitem[]{KSB}

5447: 	Kaiser, N., Squires, G., Broadhurst, T., 1995, \apj, 449, 460

5448: 

5449: \bibitem[Kawahara et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...659..257K} 

5450: 	Kawahara, H., Suto, 

5451: 	Y., Kitayama, T., Sasaki, S., 

5452: 	Shimizu, M., Rasia, E., 

5453: 	\& Dolag, K.\ 2007,  \apj, 659, 257 

5454: 

5455: \bibitem{KA1689} 

5456: 	King, L. J., Clowe, D. I., Schneider, P. 2002 A\&A, 383, 118 

5457: 

5458: % projection

5459: \bibitem{kingcorless}

5460: 	King, L. \& Corless, V. 2007, \mnras, 374, 37

5461: 		

5462: 

5463: \bibitem[Kneib et al.(2003)]{kneib03}

5464: 	Kneib, J.-P. et al. 2003, \apj, 598, 804 

5465: 

5466: \bibitem{lemze08}

5467: 	Lemze, D., Barkana, L., Broadhurst, T., Rephaeli, Y. 2008,

5468: 	\mnras in press (astro-ph/0711.3908)

5469: 

5470: \bibitem{GA1689} 

5471: 	Leonard, A., Goldberg, D.~M., Haaga, J.~L., Massey, R. 2007, 

5472: 	\apj, 666, L51

5473: 

5474: 

5475: \bibitem{SW-A1689}

5476: 	Limousin, M. et al. 2007, ApJ, 668, 643

5477: 

5478: 

5479: %\bibitem[Mahdavi et al. 2007]{mah07} 

5480: %	Mahdavi, A., Hoekstra, H., Babul,

5481: %	A., Balam, D.\& Capak, P. 2007,

5482: %	\apj, 668., 806

5483: 

5484: 

5485: \bibitem{marshall02}

5486: 	Marshall, P.~J., Hobson, M.~P.,

5487: 	Gull, S.~F., Bridle, S.~L. 2002,

5488: 	\mnras, 335, 1037

5489: 

5490: \bibitem{STEP2}

5491: 	Massey, R. et al. 2007, \mnras, 376, 13

5492: 

5493: %\bibitem[Miyazaki et al. (2002)]{miya02}

5494: %   Miyazaki, S., et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, 833

5495: 

5496: \bibitem{elinor}

5497: 	Medezinski, E., Broadhurst, T., Umetsu, K.,

5498: 	Coe, D., Benitez, N., Ford, H., Rephaeli, Y.,

5499: 	Arimoto, N., \& Kong, X. 2007, \apj, 663, 717

5500: 

5501: % WL DM search

5502: %\bibitem{miyazaki02}

5503: %	Miyazaki, S. et al. 2002, \apj, 580, L97

5504: 

5505: 

5506: \bibitem{maisinger98}

5507: 	Maisinger, K., Hobson, M.~P., Lasenby, A.~N. 1998,

5508: 	\mnras, 290, 313

5509: 

5510: \bibitem{Navarro et al. (1996)}

5511: 	Navarro, J.~F., Frenk, C.~S., White, S.~D.~M., 1996, \apj, 462, 563

5512: 

5513: \bibitem{NFW}

5514: 	Navarro, J.~F., Frenk, C.~S., White, S.~D.~M., 1997, \apj, 490, 493

5515: 

5516: \bibitem{Neto07}

5517: 	Neto, A.~F. et al. 2007, \mnras, 381, 1450

5518: 

5519: 

5520: \bibitem[Oguri, Taruya, \& Suto 2001]{4407}

5521: 	Oguri, M., Taruya, A., Suto, Y. 2001, \apj, 559, 572

5522: 

5523: 

5524: \bibitem{Oguri et al. (2005)}

5525: 	Oguri, M., Takada, M., Umetsu, K., \& Broadhurst, T. 2005,

5526: 	\apj, 632, 841

5527: 

5528: 

5529: \bibitem{OU07} 

5530:         Okabe, N. \& Umetsu, K. 2008, PASJ in press (arXiv:astro-ph/0702649)

5531: 

5532: %\bibitem{HOLICs} 

5533: %	Okura, Y., Umetsu, K., \& Futamase, T., 2007, ApJ, 660, 995 

5534: 

5535: 

5536: \bibitem{HOLICs2}

5537: 	Okura, Y., Umetsu, K., \& Futamase, T. 2008, ApJ in press

5538: 	(arXiv:astro-ph/0710.2262)

5539: 

5540: %%dm halo

5541: \bibitem[Peebles 1980]{4428} 

5542: 	Peebles, P. J. E., 1980  The large-scale structure of

5543: 	the universe (Princeton University Press) 

5544: 

5545: %% N-body

5546: %\bibitem[Power2003]{4433}

5547: %	Power et al. 2003, \mnras, 338, 14

5548: 

5549: 

5550: \bibitem{Press}

5551: 	Press, W.~H., Teukolsky, S., 

5552: 	Vetterling, T.~W., and Flannery, B.~P. 1992,

5553: 	{\it Numerical Recipes in Fortran}, Cambidge University Press, 

5554: 	2nd edition

5555: 

5556: %% non gaussian

5557: \bibitem{sadeh}

5558: 	Sadeh, S., Rephaeli, Y., \& Silk, J. 2007, \mnras, 380, 637 

5559: 

5560:   	

5561: \bibitem{sand04}

5562: 	Sand, D.~J., Treu, T., Smith, G.~P., \& Ellis, R.~S. 2004,

5563: 	\apj, 604, 88

5564: 

5565: 

5566: \bibitem[Sato et al. 2003]{sat03} 

5567: 	Sato, J., Umetsu, K.,  Futamase, T. \&

5568: 	Yamada, T. 2003, \apj, 582, L67.

5569: 

5570: 

5571: \bibitem[Seitz et al. (1998)]{seitz98}

5572: 	Seitz, S., Schneider, P., \& Bartelmann, M. 1998, \aap, 337, 325

5573: 

5574: \bibitem{seljak98}

5575: 	Seljak, U. 1998, \apj, 506, 64

5576: 

5577: \bibitem{sereno07}

5578: 	Sereno, M. 2007, \mnras, 380, 1207

5579: 

5580: 

5581: \bibitem{ss95}

5582: 	Schneider, P. \& Seitz, C. 1995, \aap, 294, 411

5583: 

5584: 

5585: \bibitem[Schneider et al. (2000)]{schneider00}

5586: 	Schneider, P., King, L., \& Erben, T. 2000, \aap, 353, 41

5587: 

5588: 

5589: \bibitem{shimizu03}

5590: 	Shimizu, M., 

5591: 	Kitayama, T.,

5592: 	Sasaki, S.,

5593: 	\& Suto, Y. 2003, \apj, 590, 197

5594: 

5595: \bibitem{Smith05}

5596: 	Smith, G.~P. et al. 2005, \mnras, 359, 417

5597: 

5598: \bibitem{wmap}

5599: 	Spergel, D.~N. et al. 2003, \apjs, 148, 175

5600: 

5601: \bibitem{wmap3}

5602: 	Spergel, D.~N. et al. 2007, \apjs, 170, 377

5603: 

5604: \bibitem{Springel05}

5605: 	Springel, V. et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629

5606: 

5607: % mem

5608: \bibitem{Suyu}

5609: 	Suyu, S. H., Marshall, P. J., Hobson, M. P., Blandford,

5610: 	R. D. 2006, \mnras, 371, 983

5611:  

5612: \bibitem{takada05}

5613: 	Takada, M. \& Jain, B. 2003, \mnras, 340, 580

5614: 

5615: \bibitem{tasitsiomi2004}

5616: 	Tasitsiomi, A. et al. 2004,  \apj, 607, 125

5617: 

5618: \bibitem{Taylor98}		

5619: 	Taylor, A.~N., Dye, S., Broadhurst, T., 

5620: 	Benitez, N., van Kampen, E. 1998, \apj, 501, 539

5621: 

5622: \bibitem{Taylor07}

5623: 	Taylor, A.~N., Kitching, T.~D., Bacon, D.~J., \& Heavens, A.~F.

5624: 	2007, \mnras, 374, 1377

5625: 

5626: \bibitem{Tegmark04}

5627: 	Tegmark, M. et al. 2004, \prd, 69, 3501

5628: 

5629: \bibitem{Tyson90}

5630: 	Tyson, J.~A., Wenk, R.~A., \& Valdes, F. 1990, \apj, 349, L1

5631: 

5632: \bibitem{TA1689}

5633: 	Tyson, J.~A.  \& Fisher, P. 1995, \apj, 446,  L55

5634: 

5635: 	

5636: \bibitem{UTF1999}

5637: 	Umetsu, K, Tada, M., \& Futamase, T. 1999,

5638: 	Prog.~Theor.~Phys.~Suppl., 133, 53

5639: 

5640: \bibitem{UF2000}

5641: 	Umetsu, K, \& Futamase, T. 2000, \apj, 539, L5

5642: 

5643: \bibitem{UA1689} 

5644: 	Umetsu, K., Takada, M., Broadhurst, T. 2007,

5645: 	Mod.~Phys.~Lett.~A, 22, 2099 (astro-ph/0702096)

5646: 

5647: % cosmic shear

5648: %\bibitem{vanwaerbeke00}

5649: %	Van Waerbeke, L. et al. 2000, \aap, 358, 30

5650: 

5651: \bibitem{wechsler2002}

5652: 	Wechsler, R. H. et al. 2002, \apj, 568, 52

5653: 

5654: \bibitem{wechsler2006}

5655: 	Wechsler, R. H., 

5656: 	Zentner, A. R., 

5657: 	Bullock, J. S., 

5658: 	Kravtsov, A. V., \&

5659: 	Allgood, B. 2006, \apj, 652, 71

5660: 

5661: \bibitem{wright}

5662: 	Wright, C. O. \& Brainerd, T. G. 2000, \apj, 534, 34

5663: 

5664: 

5665: \bibitem{zhangpen}

5666: 	Zhang, P. \& Pen, U.-L. 2005, \prl, 95, 1302

5667: 

5668: %\bibitem{vanWaerbeke}

5669: %	Van Waerbeke, L. et al. 2001, A\&A, 374, 757

5670: 

5671: 

5672: 

5673:  

5674: \end{thebibliography}

5675: 

5676: \end{document}

5677: 

5678: %%

5679: %% End of file `sample.tex'.

5680:   

5681: