1: \documentclass{emulateapj}

2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

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

4: 

5: 

6: \usepackage{graphicx}

7: \usepackage{epsf}

8: %\usepackage{apjfonts}

9: \bibliographystyle{apj}

10: 

11: 

12: %%%

13: \newcommand{\nM}{\frac{dn}{dM}}

14: \newcommand{\Mobs}{M_{\rm obs}}

15: \newcommand{\nMobs}{\frac{dn}{d\rm\Mobs}}

16: \newcommand{\Npix}{N_{\rm pix}}

17: \newcommand{\Nz}{N_{\rm z}}

18: \newcommand{\NM}{N_{\rm M}}

19: \newcommand{\Var}{\mbox{Var}}

20: \newcommand{\tc}{c'}

21: \newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}

22: \newcommand{\bOmega}{\bm{\Omega}}

23: \newcommand{\Mbias}{M_{\rm bias}}

24: \newcommand{\sigmalnM}{\sigma_{\rm \ln M}}

25: \newcommand{\avg}[1]{\langle#1\rangle}

26: \newcommand{\mbar}{{\bar m}}

27: \newcommand{\C}{\bold C}

28: \newcommand{\D}{\bold D}

29: \newcommand{\bS}{\bold S}

30: \newcommand{\himpc}{h^{-1}{\rm Mpc}}

31: \newcommand{\hiMsun}{h^{-1}{M_\odot}}

32: \newcommand{\cvir}{c_{\rm vir}}

33: \newcommand{\OmegaDE}{\Omega_{\rm DE}}

34: %%%

35: 

36: 

37: \begin{document}

38: 

39: 

40: \journalinfo{The Astrophysical Journal, 688:729--741, 2008 December 1 }

41: \submitted{Received 2008 March 11; accepted  2008 July 13}

42: \shortauthors{WU, ROZO, \& WECHSLER}

43: \shorttitle{EFFECTS OF HALO ASSEMBLY BIAS ON SELF-CALIBRATION}

44: \title{The Effects of Halo Assembly Bias on Self-Calibration in Galaxy Cluster Surveys}

45: 

46: \author{Hao-Yi Wu \altaffilmark{1}, Eduardo Rozo \altaffilmark{2},

47: Risa H. Wechsler \altaffilmark{1}}

48: 

49: \altaffiltext{1}{Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and

50: Cosmology, Physics Department, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center,

51: Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; hywu@stanford.edu,

52: rwechsler@stanford.edu}

53: 

54: \altaffiltext{2}{The Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics,

55: The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210;

56: erozo@mps.ohio-state.edu}

57: 

58: 

59: \begin{abstract}

60: 

61: Self-calibration techniques for analyzing galaxy cluster counts

62: utilize the abundance and the clustering amplitude of dark matter

63: halos.  These properties simultaneously constrain cosmological

64: parameters and the cluster observable--mass relation.  It was recently

65: discovered that the clustering amplitude of halos depends not only on

66: the halo mass, but also on various secondary variables, such as the

67: halo formation time and the concentration; these dependences are

68: collectively termed ``assembly bias.''  Applying modified Fisher

69: matrix formalism, we explore whether these secondary variables have a

70: significant impact on the study of dark energy properties using the

71: self-calibration technique in current (SDSS) and the near future (DES,

72: SPT, and LSST) cluster surveys. The impact of the secondary dependence

73: is determined by (1) the scatter in the observable--mass relation and

74: (2) the correlation between observable and secondary variables.  We

75: find that for optical surveys, the secondary dependence does not

76: significantly influence an SDSS-like survey; however, it may affect a

77: DES-like survey (given the high scatter currently expected from

78: optical clusters) and an LSST-like survey (even for low scatter values

79: and low correlations).  For an SZ survey such as SPT, the impact of

80: secondary dependence is insignificant if the scatter is 20\% or lower

81: but can be enhanced by the potential high scatter values introduced by

82: a highly -correlated background.  Accurate modeling of the assembly

83: bias is necessary for cluster self-calibration in the era of precision

84: cosmology.

85: 

86: \end{abstract}

87: 

88: 

89: \keywords{cosmology: theory --- cosmological parameters ---

90: large-scale structure of universe --- galaxies: clusters: general --- 

91: galaxies: halos --- methods: statistical}

92: 

93: 

94: \section{Introduction}

95: 

96: The observed accelerating expansion of the Universe, which is often

97: interpreted as evidence of dark energy, is one of the most surprising

98: results of modern cosmology.  In the $\Lambda$CDM paradigm, dark

99: energy governs the late time expansion of the Universe, halting the

100: growth of structures.  Consequently, the evolution of the number of

101: massive galaxy clusters provides one of the most powerful probes of

102: dark energy

103: \citep[e.g.][]{Wang98,Haiman01,Holder01,Levine02,Hu03,Majumdar03,Rozo07a,Gladders07,Mantz07}.

104: 

105: 

106: Several planned and ongoing surveys will identify massive clusters

107: over substantial volumes using a variety of techniques, including

108: optical galaxy counts \cite[e.g.][]{SDSS, DES, LSST}, the

109: Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect \cite[e.g.][]{SPT, ACT}, and X-ray emissions

110: \cite[e.g.][]{Ebeling07MACS,400d}.  These cluster surveys will

111: complement a variety of future dark energy measurements using tools

112: such as Type Ia supernovae, weak lensing, and baryon acoustic

113: oscillations.  Since each of these methods is subject to different

114: systematics, combining them thus provides cross checks necessary to

115: avoid biased inferences on the properties of dark energy

116: \citep{Albrecht06}.

117: 

118: 

119: While the abundance of clusters as a function of mass is well

120: understood from a theoretical standpoint, measuring this abundance

121: relies on observable mass tracers.  This reliance is the single most

122: significant obstacle confronting the use of clusters as cosmological

123: probes.  In particular, the statistical observable--mass relation

124: needs to be understood to high accuracy in order to avoid systematic

125: errors in the inference of cosmological parameters. Alternatively,

126: additional observable quantities that depend on halo mass allow one to

127: simultaneously constrain cosmology and the aforementioned

128: observable--mass relation.  One such observable quantity is the

129: clustering amplitude of clusters, which depends sensitively on mass

130: and can be determined through a counts-in-cells analysis.  This

131: general method is often referred to as ``self-calibration''

132: \citep{Majumdar04,LimaHu04,LimaHu05,LimaHu07}.

133: 

134: 

135: In this work, we explore a possible systematic that arises in the

136: self-calibration analysis, namely, the dependence of the clustering

137: amplitude of halos on secondary variables.  The clustering amplitude

138: of halos is characterized by the halo bias, and recent studies have

139: shown that halo bias depends not only on halo mass but also on

140: additional halo properties, such as concentration, formation time,

141: spin, substructure fraction, etc.  \citep[e.g.][]{Gao05, Harker06,

142: Wechsler06, GaoWhite07, Wetzel07, Bett07, Jing07}.  These dependences

143: are often interpreted as arising from the different assembly histories

144: of halos of the same mass, and we refer to these dependences

145: collectively as ``assembly bias'' \citep[e.g.][]{Croton07}.  If

146: cluster selection is biased with respect to any of these variables,

147: the observed clustering amplitude of clusters will deviate from the

148: mean clustering amplitude of clusters with the same mass distribution.

149: This deviation will lead to a biased inference of the observable--mass

150: relation, and therefore to biased estimates for the cosmological

151: parameters of interest.

152: 

153: 

154: We herein take the secondary parameter to be the halo concentration,

155: which has been shown to play a role in halo bias for massive clusters

156: by Wechsler et al.\@ (2006; see also \citealt{Wetzel07};

157: \citealt{Jing07}).  We then incorporate the concentration dependence

158: of halo bias into the standard self-calibration formalism developed in

159: \cite{LimaHu04, LimaHu05}.  With modified Fisher matrix formalism, we

160: investigate the impact of this additional dependence on cosmological

161: parameter estimates from self-calibration.  We specifically calculate

162: the expected effects for four example galaxy cluster surveys, which

163: represent the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; assuming clusters

164: selected from the photometric data), the Dark Energy Survey (DES), the

165: South Pole Telescope (SPT), and the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope

166: (LSST).  We also explore various assumptions about the correlation

167: between cluster observable and concentration.  In detail, the

168: significance of this systematic effect depends on the strength of this

169: correlation as well as on the observable--mass scatter.  We find that

170: the resulting bias in the inferred cosmological parameters is

171: insignificant for the current SDSS photometric surveys, but it can be

172: significant for upcoming photometric surveys such as DES and LSST.  On

173: the other hand, for SZ this systematic is less likely to be

174: significant if the scatter is small and mainly intrinsic, but may

175: still be significant if the correlated background dominates the

176: scatter.

177: 

178: 

179: This paper is organized as follows.  In \S\ref{sec:bias} we discuss

180: why assembly bias may lead to biased cosmological parameter estimates

181: in cluster counting experiments. In \S\ref{sec:self-calibration} we

182: review the standard self-calibration formalism, and then proceed in

183: \S\ref{sec:assemblybias} to include assembly bias into this formalism.

184: Our statistical methodology for estimating the systematic errors due

185: to assembly bias is described in \S\ref{sec:fisher}.  Details of our

186: implementation can be found in

187: \S\ref{sec:implementation}.  Section \ref{sec:results} presents our results

188: and discussion.  We summarize in \S\ref{sec:conclusions}.

189: 

190: %-----------------------------------------------

191: %-----------------------------------------------

192: %-----------------------------------------------

193: %-----------------------------------------------

194: %-----------------------------------------------

195: %-----------------------------------------------

196: 

197: 

198: \section{Halo Bias and Dark Energy: Why Assembly Bias Matters}\label{sec:bias}

199: 

200: Halo bias characterizes the clustering amplitude of dark matter halos,

201: and it is typically defined as the ratio between the density contrast

202: of halos and that of the dark matter.  In the hierarchical structure

203: formation predicted by CDM, halo bias is a strong function of mass,

204: increasing for more massive halos.  This dependence on mass is now

205: well calibrated from numerical simulations and can be approximated

206: analytically with the excursion-set theory

207: \citep[e.g.][]{MoWhite96,Sheth01, SeljakWarren04, Zentner07}.  Halo

208: bias depends sensitively on dark energy in a way that is complementary

209: to the dependence of the mass function on dark energy; thus, including

210: the halo bias information in cluster counting experiments improves the

211: dark energy constraints from using mean halo abundances alone.

212:   

213: 

214: Much work on halo bias has made the simplifying assumption that halo

215: bias depends only on halo mass. However, recent studies based on

216: \emph{N}-body simulations have found evidence that secondary variables such

217: as halo formation time and concentration do impact halo bias

218: \citep[e.g.][]{Gao05,Harker06,Wechsler06, GaoWhite07,

219: Wetzel07,Bett07,Jing07}.  In this work, we focus on the impact of halo

220: concentration on halo bias, principally because among all secondary

221: parameters, this dependence is the strongest at cluster scales and is

222: the best understood statistically.  The halo concentration describes

223: the halo density profile and is defined as $c = R_{\rm vir}/r_s$, where

224: $r_s$ is the radius where the density profile has a log slope of $-2$.

225: The halo concentration has been shown to correlate tightly with the

226: halo formation epoch by e.g.\@ \cite{Wechsler02}.

227: 

228: 

229: We specifically use the fitting formula given by 

230: \citet[][eq.\@ 6]{Wechsler06}:

231: %

232: \begin{equation}

233: b^{\rm ab}(M,c) = b_{\rm avg}(M)\times b_c(c|M/M_*) 

234: \label{eq:W06}

235: \end{equation}

236: %

237: where $b_{\rm avg}(M)$ is the mean halo bias at fixed mass,

238: $b_c(c|M/M_*)$ characterizes the concentration dependence of halo

239: bias, and $M_*$ is the characteristic mass of gravitational collapse

240: [quantitatively defined as $\sigma(M_*)=1.686$, where $\sigma(M)$ is

241: the r.m.s density fluctuation inside a sphere that encloses mass $M$].

242: The superscript ``ab'' refers to ``assembly bias,'' which we use as a

243: generic term for the dependence of halo bias on secondary variables,

244: based on the conjecture that these dependences arise through the

245: different formation histories of halos of the same mass.  We assume

246: this formula holds for all clusters included in our fiducial surveys,

247: although part of these clusters are outside the range where this

248: formula has been calibrated with simulations.  In addition, we note

249: that \cite{Wechsler06} calibrated this formula with $M_{\rm vir}$, while

250: the mass function and the halo bias we use are not always

251: well-calibrated with the same mass definition.  We ignore the

252: systematic errors that may be caused by these uncertainties.

253: 

254: 

255: \begin{figure*}[t!]

256: %\plotone{assemblybias.eps}

257: \plotone{f1.eps}

258: \caption{ 

259: {\it Left:} Dependence of halo bias on concentration at

260: $z=0$ assumed in this work, based on the fitting formula of

261: $b^{\rm ab}(M,c)$ in \protect\cite{Wechsler06}.  We assume a WMAP3

262: cosmology and log-normally distributed concentrations at a given halo

263: mass.  Halos are binned by concentration into four quartiles, and the

264: halo bias of each quartile systematically deviates from the average

265: halo bias (\emph{solid curve}).  Above $10^{13.5} \hiMsun$, low concentration

266: halos (\emph{red and orange dotted curves}) are more clustered than high

267: concentration ones (\emph{green and blue dashed curves}) of the same mass.

268: The bottom panel shows the residual compared with the average halo

269: bias.  {\it Right panel:} Degeneracy between high dark energy density

270: and assembly bias.  The solid curve shows the cumulative bias

271: (eq.\@~[\ref{eq:cbias}], with the selection function nonzero above a

272: threshold $M_{\rm th}$) for the fiducial WMAP3 cosmology.  The dashed

273: curve shows the effect of assembly bias with the assumption of

274: perfectly anti-correlated cluster observable and concentration (see

275: \S\ref{sec:bias} and \ref{sec:assemblybias} for details).  This

276: correlation can mimic the effect of high dark energy density (here

277: assumed to be $\OmegaDE = 0.9$), shown as the dotted curve.

278: }

279: \label{fig:assemblybias}

280: \end{figure*}

281: 

282: 

283: The left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:assemblybias} illustrates how

284: concentration impacts halo bias in the fitting formula of

285: \citet[][]{Wechsler06}.  As can be seen, for $M\gtrsim10^{13.5}

286: \hiMsun$, low concentration halos are more clustered than high

287: concentration ones of the same mass.  This difference is potentially

288: significant: if the cluster observable is correlated with

289: concentration, one might measure cluster bias that differs from the

290: mean halo bias for random halos of the same mass.

291: 

292: 

293: The right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:assemblybias} shows how the effect

294: of assembly bias can resemble that of a high dark energy density, with

295: an extreme assumption of perfectly anti-correlated observable and

296: concentration.  Cumulative bias, which is relevant for halo samples

297: above a certain observable threshold (see eq.~[\ref{eq:cbias}]), is

298: plotted here.  As can be seen, if we tend to observe low concentration

299: halos, the effect of assembly bias (\emph{dashed curve}) makes the

300: observed halo bias higher than the mean halo bias (averaged over

301: random halos samples of the same mass) for the same fiducial cosmology

302: (\emph{solid curve}).  This effect mimics a high dark energy density

303: $\OmegaDE = 0.9$ (\emph{dotted curve}), since high $\OmegaDE$ will make

304: structures rarer and more clustered.  Thus, a wrong inference of

305: $\OmegaDE$ is possible if assembly bias is ignored in this case.  In

306: the following sections, we provide detailed formalism and analyses of

307: such systematics under the framework of the self-calibration of

308: observable--mass relation.

309: 

310: 

311: %-----------------------------------------------

312: %-----------------------------------------------

313: %-----------------------------------------------

314: %-----------------------------------------------

315: %-----------------------------------------------

316: %-----------------------------------------------

317: 

318: 

319: \section{Formalism}

320: 

321: \subsection{Counts-in-Cells Analysis and Basic Self-Calibration: A Review}\label{sec:self-calibration} 

322: 

323: In a pixelated galaxy cluster survey, halo bias is related to the

324: sample variance of cluster counts within the small sub-volumes of the

325: survey \citep{HuKravtsov03}.  Including the sample variance in a

326: counts-in-cells analysis allows one to ``self-calibrate'' the

327: observable--mass distribution, which is one of the main uncertainties

328: in modeling the surveys. This approach can thereby improve the dark

329: energy constraints relative to ``counts only'' experiments

330: \citep{Majumdar04,LimaHu04,LimaHu05,LimaHu07}.  In this section, we

331: review the basic self-calibration, closely following the formalism

332: developed by \cite{LimaHu04}.

333: 

334: 

335: Given a large-volume survey, consider a redshift slice which is

336: sufficiently thin to make evolution ignorable.  We then divide the

337: area of this slice into equal-area cells and count the clusters in

338: each cell.\footnote{ Here we suppress all redshift dependence in our

339: notation for simplicity.  In practice, we consider the redshift

340: dependence of the mass function, the halo bias, the observable--mass

341: distribution, and the comoving survey volume.  For readers of

342: \cite{LimaHu04}, note that our notation is slightly different.  Since

343: we consider a single redshift slice, our subscript $i$ indicates the

344: cell label of the same redshift, while in \cite{LimaHu04}, their

345: subscript $i$ indicates a cell of redshift $z_i$. } The number of

346: clusters in cell $i$, denoted by $N_i$, is affected by the Poisson

347: shot noise, which is modeled as $N_i \sim {\rm Poisson}(m_i)$.  This

348: Poisson mean $m_i$ varies from cell to cell due to the large-scale

349: clustering of matter and halos, and this fluctuation can be modeled as

350: a normal distribution $m_i \sim {\rm N}(\mbar, S)$, where $\mbar$ is

351: the mean halo abundance and $S$ is the sample variance.

352: 

353: 

354: In a given mass range, the mean number counts of clusters in cell $i$

355: depend on $\bar m$, the bias integrated over the mass range $\bar b$,

356: and the mass overdensity $\delta_i$ within this cell with respect to

357: the background:

358: %

359: \begin{equation}

360: m_i = \mbar (1+ \bar b\ \delta_i)\ .

361: \end{equation}

362: %

363: The sample variance then has the form

364: \begin{eqnarray}

365: S&=& \avg{(m_i-\mbar)^2} \nonumber\\

366: 	&=& \mbar^2 \bar b^2 \sigma_{\rm V}^2 \ ,

367: \end{eqnarray}

368: where 

369: %

370: \begin{equation}

371: \sigma_{\rm V}^2 = \frac{1}{V^2}\int\frac{d^3\vec k}{(2 \pi)^3}W(\vec k)W^*(\vec k) P(k) \ .

372: \end{equation}

373: %

374: Here $P(k)$ is the matter power spectrum and $W(\vec k)$ is the

375: \emph{k}-space window function of a cell of volume $V$, normalized such that

376: $V = \int d^3\vec x W(\vec x)$.  Applying a counts-in-cells analysis,

377: $N_i$ of each cell can be measured, and $\mbar$ and $S$ can be

378: obtained from a likelihood analysis.  With additional knowledge of the

379: matter power spectrum, $\bar b$ can be obtained.

380: 

381: 

382: Note that this sample variance should be more rigorously defined as

383: the sample {\it covariance}

384: %

385: \begin{eqnarray}

386: S_{ij}&=& \avg{(m_i-\mbar)(m_j-\mbar)} \\

387: 	&=& \mbar^2 \bar b^2 \sigma_{ij}^2 \ , \nonumber

388: \end{eqnarray}

389: %

390: with

391: %

392: \begin{equation}

393: \sigma_{ij}^2 = \frac{1}{V_i V_j}\int\frac{d^3\vec k}{(2 \pi)^3}W_i(\vec k)W^*_j(\vec k) P(k) \ . 

394: \end{equation}

395: %

396: In practice, our cell size is much larger than the correlation length

397: of clusters; thus, the correlations between different cells are

398: negligible. The off-diagonal elements are therefore much smaller then

399: the diagonal ones, and the matrix $S_{ij}$ reduces to a diagonal

400: matrix $S_{ij} = \delta_{ij} S$, whose dimension equals $n_c$, the

401: number of cells in the redshift slice.

402: 

403: 

404: We next relate these measurable quantities to theoretical models.  Let

405: $\Mobs$ denote the observed mass proxy (the observable) of galaxy

406: clusters.  Given a differential mass function $dn/dM$ and an

407: observable--mass distribution $P(\Mobs|M)$, the differential observed

408: cluster abundance is given as

409: %

410: \begin{equation}

411: \nMobs = \int dM\ \nM P(\Mobs|M) \ .

412: \end{equation}

413: %

414: In terms of the binning function $\phi(\Mobs)$---which is defined to

415: be equal to unity if $\Mobs$ falls in the bin corresponding to the

416: observable range, and zero otherwise---and the cell volume $V$, the

417: mean observed cluster abundance reads

418: %

419: \begin{equation}

420: \bar m = V \int d\Mobs\ \nMobs \phi(\Mobs) \ ,

421: \end{equation} 

422: %

423: which can be further simplified as

424: %

425: \begin{equation}

426: \bar m = V \int dM\ \nM \avg{\phi|M}

427: \label{eq:mean}

428: \end{equation}

429: %

430: if we define the selection function to be

431: %

432: \begin{equation}

433: \avg{\phi|M} = \int d\Mobs\ P(\Mobs|M) \phi(\Mobs) \ . 

434: \end{equation}

435: %

436: Given the halo bias $b(M)$, the bias integrated over the observable

437: bin similarly reads

438: %

439: \begin{equation}

440: \bar b = \frac{V}{\bar m}\int dM\ \nM b(M)  \avg{\phi|M} \ .

441: \label{eq:cbias}

442: \end{equation}

443: %

444: From equations~\ref{eq:mean} and~\ref{eq:cbias} we can see that if

445: both $\bar m$ and $\bar b$ are measured in the survey, the selection

446: function $\avg{\phi|M}$ can be self-calibrated.

447: 

448: 

449: In large-volume surveys, we often have several redshift bins and need

450: to consider how $\mbar$ and $S$ vary with redshift: $\mbar(z)$ and

451: $S(z)$.  The sample variance is then generalized to the matrix $\bold

452: S = {\rm diag} (\bold S_{ij}(z_1),\bold S_{ij}(z_2),...)$, where each

453: $\bold S_{ij}(z_k)$ has the dimension $n_c\times n_c$.  Similarly,

454: $\mbar$ is generalized as $\bold \mbar = (\bold\mbar(z_1),

455: \bold\mbar(z_2),...)$, with each $\bold\mbar(z_k) $ being a $n_c$

456: component vector.  For future reference, we further define $\bold M =

457: {\rm diag}(\bold\mbar)$ and $\C = \bold M +\bold S$; $\C$ is the

458: covariance matrix in the limit of large cluster numbers in a cell

459: ($m_i\gg 1$; see \citealt{LimaHu04}).

460: 

461: 

462: Constraints on dark energy parameters are extracted from the

463: likelihood function that involves the counts-in-cells data, the

464: theoretical mean abundance, and the theoretical sample variance. For

465: theoretical forecasts, the Fisher matrix---the expectation value of

466: the second derivative of the minus log-likelihood function---is often

467: applied. For a combination of the Poisson shot noise and the Gaussian

468: sample variance, the Fisher matrix reads \citep{LimaHu04}

469: %

470: \begin{equation}

471: F_{\alpha \beta}=\bold{\bar m}^{T}_{,\alpha} \bold C^{-1} \bold{\bar m}_{,\beta} + \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}[\bold C^{-1} \bold S_{,\alpha}\bold C^{-1} \bold S_{,\beta}] 

472: \ ,

473: \label{eq:fisher}

474: \end{equation}

475: %

476: where the comma and subscript ${\alpha}$ indicates the partial

477: derivative with respect to model parameter $\theta_\alpha$.  The

478: Fisher matrix approach essentially approximates the likelihood

479: function as a Gaussian distribution near its maximum likelihood point,

480: and the curvature at this point is related to the constraints on the

481: model parameters.  The covariance matrix for model parameters is

482: approximated by the inverse of the Fisher matrix.  This basic picture

483: will play a key role in \S\ref{sec:fisher}, where we modify the Fisher

484: matrix formalism for assessing the systematic errors.

485: 

486: %-----------------------------------------------

487: %-----------------------------------------------

488: %-----------------------------------------------

489: %-----------------------------------------------

490: %-----------------------------------------------

491: %-----------------------------------------------

492: 

493: 

494: \subsection{Incorporating Assembly Bias into Self-Calibration}\label{sec:assemblybias}

495: 

496: We now incorporate assembly bias into the self-calibration formalism.

497: The formalism we outline below is relevant for any secondary parameter

498: which both affects the halo bias and correlates with the cluster mass

499: proxy. We specifically consider the secondary parameter to be the halo

500: concentration $c$ and refer to this dependence throughout as

501: ``assembly bias.''  Note that although the halo concentration and

502: assembly history are generally expected to be tightly correlated

503: \citep{NFW97, Wechsler02}, they may not have exactly the same effect

504: on halo bias \citep[see e.g.][]{GaoWhite07}.

505: 

506: 

507: Let $b^{\rm ab}(M,c)$ be the halo assembly bias, which now depends on both

508: mass and concentration, and let $f(c|M)$ be the distribution of

509: concentrations for halos of mass $M$.  In this case, the

510: observable--mass distribution $P(\Mobs|M)$ needs to be generalized to

511: an observable--mass--concentration distribution $P(\Mobs|M,c)$.  With

512: the secondary parameter $c$, the mean abundance $\bar m$ takes the

513: form

514: %

515: \begin{equation}

516: \mbar = V \int dM\ \nM \int dc\ f(c|M) \avg{\phi|M,c} \ ,

517: \end{equation}

518: %

519: where

520: %

521: \begin{equation}

522: \avg{\phi|M,c} = \int d\Mobs\ P(\Mobs|M,c) \phi(\Mobs) \ .

523: \end{equation}

524: %

525: This mean abundance remains the same as equation~\ref{eq:mean} since

526: the concentration dependence only affects the halo bias but not the

527: mass function.  We thus require

528: %

529: \begin{equation}

530: \int dc\ f(c|M) \avg{\phi|M,c} = \avg{\phi|M} \ .

531: \label{eq:marginalization}

532: \end{equation}

533: %

534: On the other hand, the bias integrated over the observable range is

535: affected, and the analog of Equation \ref{eq:cbias} is

536: %

537: \begin{equation}

538: \bar b^{\rm ab} = \frac{V}{\mbar} \int dM\ \nM \int dc\  b^{\rm ab}(M,c) f(c|M) \avg{\phi|M,c} \ .

539: \end{equation}

540: %

541: The corresponding sample variance in this case reads

542: \begin{equation}

543: S_{ij}^{\rm ab} = \mbar^2 (\bar b^{\rm ab})^2 \sigma_{ij}^2 \ ,

544: \end{equation}

545: %

546: and we analogously define $\C^{\rm ab} = {\bold M} + {\bold S}^{\rm ab}$.

547: Replacing the corresponding matrices in Equation~\ref{eq:fisher}, we

548: obtain the Fisher matrix incorporating assembly bias.

549: 

550: 

551: The difference between $P(\Mobs|M,c)$ and $P(\Mobs|M)$ depends on how

552: $\Mobs$ correlates with $c$.  We leave these details to

553: \S\ref{sec:correlation} and simply state here that our parametrization

554: depends on the cross-correlation coefficient $r$ relating $\Mobs$ and

555: $c$ at fixed halo mass.  When $r=0$, assembly bias has no impact on

556: self-calibration; when $r=\pm 1$, the impact of assembly bias is

557: maximized.  Figure~\ref{fig:EllipseAB} demonstrates the formalism

558: described above (with an SPT survey assumption and a WMAP3 cosmology,

559: see \S\ref{sec:implementation}) and shows how the correlation between

560: $\Mobs$ and $c$ changes the constraints on dark energy parameters,

561: assuming that we have thorough knowledge of assembly bias and that

562: $r=\pm1$ (\emph{dotted and dashed curves}).  As can be seen, correlation

563: between $\Mobs$ and $c$ actually improves the dark energy constraints

564: if $r$ is known a priori.  This improvement is presumably due the

565: dependence of bias on $M_*$, which is also sensitive to dark energy,

566: although we also note that the assumption of self-similarity in

567: $M/M_*$ needs to be assessed in the dark energy-dominated regime.  In

568: addition, with the knowledge of $r$, the scatter in $\Mobs$ actually

569: contains the information of halo concentration, which may also improve

570: cosmological constraints.  These extreme cases are mainly for

571: demonstration, since we are unlikely to have sufficient astrophysical

572: knowledge to specify both the assembly bias and this correlation.

573: However, if individual concentrations can be measured for the most

574: massive clusters (where the impact of assembly bias is most severe),

575: they could provide observational evidence of assembly bias and

576: increase the efficacy of self-calibration.

577: 

578: 

579: In the following sections, we explore the question: if one were to

580: perform the self-calibration analysis ignoring the effects of assembly

581: bias (effectively, assuming $r=0$), how would the estimated

582: cosmological parameters be biased?  As we shall see, the answer

583: sensitively depends on $r$ and on the scatter in the observable--mass

584: distribution.  We next include $r$ as a free parameter in the Fisher

585: matrix analysis and consider the effect of marginalization over $r$.

586: However, a caveat for applying the Fisher matrix here is that since

587: $r$ is bound to the range $[-1,1]$, the likelihood function for $r$

588: may not be well-approximated as Gaussian if $r$ is close to $\pm 1$.

589: Because the Fisher matrix is based on this Gaussian approximation, it

590: may not apply to the case when $r$ approaches $\pm1$.  On the other

591: hand, our fiducial choices of this parameter, which are in the range

592: $|r| \leq 0.5$, may circumvent this problem.

593: 

594: 

595: \begin{figure}[t!]

596: %\plotone{selfcalibration_ab.eps}

597: \plotone{f2.eps}

598: \caption{

599: Improvement of dark energy constraints assuming a thorough modeling of

600: assembly bias and knowledge of the cross-correlation relating $\Mobs$

601: ---the cluster's mass estimate based on a cluster observable---and

602: $c$, the halo's concentration parameter.  All error ellipses include

603: the $68\%$ confidence regions in the $\OmegaDE$--$w$ plane.  The solid

604: ellipse shows the fiducial model of zero observable--concentration

605: correlation ($r=0$), in which case assembly bias has no effect.  The

606: dotted/dashed ellipse corresponds to an observable which is perfectly

607: correlated/anti-correlated with concentration ($r=1$/$-1$). If

608: assembly bias is correctly modeled, the sensitivity of assembly bias

609: to $M_*$ slightly improves dark energy constraints.

610: }

611: \label{fig:EllipseAB}

612: \end{figure}

613: 

614: 

615: %-----------------------------------------------

616: %-----------------------------------------------

617: %-----------------------------------------------

618: %-----------------------------------------------

619: %-----------------------------------------------

620: %-----------------------------------------------

621: 

622: 

623: \subsection{Biased Parameter Estimation from Ignored Systematics: A Modified Fisher Matrix Formalism}\label{sec:fisher}

624: 

625: In \S\ref{sec:bias}, we described how ignoring the impact of assembly

626: bias can potentially lead to biased cosmological parameter estimates.

627: In this section, we modify Fisher matrix formalism to quantitatively

628: assess the significance of this systematic.  We focus on how the

629: parameter estimates are biased due to a wrong model assumption, and

630: how significant this systematic error is when compared with

631: statistical uncertainties.  This formalism is motivated by the

632: standard Fisher matrix formalism as presented in \cite{Tegmark97KL}.

633: 

634: 

635: We generally consider two models, denoted by model $A$ and model $B$,

636: each of which describes a data set $\vec x$ based on a parameter

637: $\theta$.  Here $\theta$ can be generalized to a vector denoting a set

638: of parameters ($\theta_i$ values).  We assume that the observed data set

639: $\vec x$ is well described by model $B$ but is mistakenly analyzed

640: according to model $A$.  If $\theta_t$ denotes the true parameter in

641: model $B$ that corresponds to the observed data set $\vec x$, we are

642: interested in how the estimated parameter $\hat \theta$ recovered

643: based on model $A$ differs from $\theta_t$. Our quantitative analysis

644: can be summarized as follows:

645: %

646: \begin{enumerate}

647: %

648: \item Our starting point is the likelihood function $L_A(\vec

649: x|\theta)$ for model $A$.  The data set $\vec x$ is assumed to be

650: drawn from the probability distribution $P_B(\vec x|\theta_t)$ for

651: model $B$; in order to relate $\theta$ to $\theta_t$, we take average

652: over $\vec x$ to compute $\avg{\ln L_A(\theta)|\theta_t}$.

653: %

654: \item We take the point $\hat\theta$ which maximizes $\avg{\ln

655: L_A(\theta)|\theta_t}$ as our estimator for the recovered cosmology.

656: This step defines the function $\hat\theta(\theta_t)$, the recovered

657: model parameter varying with the input parameter $\theta_t$.  We are

658: particularly interested in $\delta\theta =

659: \hat\theta(\theta_t)-\theta_t$, which is the systematic error in

660: parameter inference due to assuming an incorrect model.\footnote{An

661: alternative approach is to first use $L_A(\vec x|\theta)$ to compute

662: the maximum likelihood estimator $\hat\theta(\vec x)$.  Since

663: $\hat\theta$ is now a function of the data $\vec x$, one could use

664: $P_B(\vec x|\theta_t)$ to compute the expectation value

665: $\avg{\hat\theta|\theta_t}$.  However, this approach is not

666: analytically tractable.  }

667: %

668: \item In order to assess the significance of the systematic error

669: $\delta\theta$, we compare it against the statistical uncertainty in

670: $\theta$.  We calculate the modified Fisher matrix $ \bold{\tilde

671: F}_{ij}(\theta_t) =\avg{\partial^2(-\ln L_A)/\partial\theta_i\partial

672: \theta_j| \theta_t}$ and obtain the corresponding error bar

673: $\sigma_{\theta_i}^2= {(\bold{\tilde F}^{-1})_{ii}}$.  The systematic

674: error is significant if $\delta\theta_{i} \gtrsim \sigma_{\theta_i}$.

675: %

676: \end{enumerate}

677: %

678: A detailed derivation when both $P_A(\vec x|\theta)$ and $P_B(\vec

679: x|\theta)$ are Gaussian can be found in the Appendix.

680: 

681: 

682: In this study, model $A$ represents the standard self-calibration

683: analysis that ignores assembly bias, while model $B$ is

684: self-calibration analysis that includes the impact of assembly bias.

685: The data set $\vec x$ is the number counts in each of the cells under

686: consideration.  The systematic errors of the recovered parameters are

687: given by

688: \begin{equation}

689: \delta\theta_j =\sum_i (\bold{F}^{-1})_{ij} {\rm Tr}\{\frac{1}{2}{\C^{-1}\C_{,i}\C^{-1}(\C^{\rm ab}-\C)}\} \ ,

690: \end{equation}

691: where $\C^{\rm ab}$ is the covariance matrices with assembly bias, and

692: $\C$ and ${\bold F}$ are the same as those in

693: equation~\ref{eq:fisher}.  The modified Fisher matrix reads

694: %

695: \begin{equation}

696: {\tilde F}_{ij}={\bold{\bar m}}^{T}_{,i} \bold C^{-1} {\bold{\bar m}}_{,j} + \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}[\bold C^{-1} \bold S_{,i}\bold C^{-1} \bold S_{,j}\C^{-1}\C^{\rm ab}]  \ ,

697: \end{equation}

698: %

699: in which the modification comes from the change of covariance matrix

700: due to assembly bias (see the Appendix).

701: %

702: We note that similar formalisms arising from different approaches can

703: be found in e.g.\@ \citet{Knox98}, \citet{Huterer01},

704: \citet{HutererLinder07}, and \citet{Amara07}.

705: 

706: 

707: 

708: 

709: \begin{figure*}[t!]

710: %\plotone{deviations.eps}

711: \plotone{f3.eps}

712: \caption{

713: Systematic errors due to ignoring existent assembly bias.  Here we

714: assume two sets of scatter and correlation values and perform the

715: analysis discussed in \S\ref{sec:fisher}, with an SPT survey

716: assumption and a WMAP3 cosmology (see \S\ref{sec:implementation}).

717: The open circles and dashed ellipses show the true parameter values

718: and the $68\%$ confidence regions with assembly bias correctly

719: included.  The solid circles and the solid ellipses show the estimated

720: values and $68\%$ confidence regions if assembly bias is completely

721: ignored.  The left panel shows that for a moderate assumption of

722: $\sigma_{\rm\ln M }=0.1$ and $r=-0.5$, the systematic errors are

723: $0.22$ and $0.23\sigma$ for $\OmegaDE$ and $w$, respectively; in

724: this case the effects of assembly bias are ignorable. On the other

725: hand, the right panel shows that for an extreme assumption of

726: $\sigma_{\rm\ln M }=0.25$ and $r=-1$, the systematic errors are

727: $1.14$ and $1.2\sigma$ for $\OmegaDE$ and $w$, respectively; in

728: this case the effects of assembly bias are significant.

729: }

730: \label{fig:estimator}

731: \end{figure*}

732: 

733: 

734: Figure \ref{fig:estimator} illustrates the results of our formalism as

735: applied to the self-calibration analysis for an SPT-like survey in the

736: specified WMAP3 cosmology (see \S\ref{sec:implementation} for details

737: of implementation and assumptions).  In each panel, the open circles

738: indicate the assumed true values, while the filled circles show the

739: recovered parameters from a self-calibration analysis that ignores

740: assembly bias.  The ellipses include the $68\%$ confidence regions in

741: the $\OmegaDE$--$w$ plane; the dashed ellipses correspond to

742: correctly-modeled assembly bias (assuming that we know the correlation

743: coefficient $r$ a priori; $r$ will be mathematically defined in

744: \S\ref{sec:correlation}), while the solid ellipses correspond to the

745: ignored assembly bias. Note that the shape of the confidence regions

746: can also be changed by this systematic.  The left panel shows the

747: assumption of a small $\Mobs$--$M$ scatter and low $\Mobs$--$c$

748: correlation ($\sigma_{\rm\ln M }=0.1$ and $r=-0.5$), and the systematic

749: errors are $0.22$ and $0.23\sigma$ for $\OmegaDE$ and $w$,

750: respectively; the deviations of the parameter estimates are much less

751: than the statistical uncertainties.  The right panel shows the

752: assumption of a larger scatter and perfectly anti-correlated $\Mobs$

753: and $c$ ($\sigma_{\rm\ln M }=0.25$ and $r=-1$), and the resulting

754: systematic errors are $1.14$ and $1.2\sigma$ for $\OmegaDE$ and

755: $w$, respectively; these deviations are significant and cannot be

756: ignored.  We thus expect the impact of assembly bias will be stronger

757: if the observable--mass relation has a large scatter and if $\Mobs$ is

758: strongly correlated with $c$.  The exact dependence of systematic

759: error on these two quantities will be fully explored in \S

760: \ref{sec:results}.

761: 

762: 

763: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

764: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

765: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

766: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

767: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

768: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

769: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

770: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

771: 

772: 

773: \section{Implementation}\label{sec:implementation}

774: 

775: \subsection{Parameterizing the Observable-Concentration Correlation}\label{sec:correlation}

776: 

777: In the absence of assembly bias, we follow \citet{LimaHu05} to

778: parameterize the observable--mass relation $P(\ln\Mobs|M)$. Given halo

779: mass $M$, the corresponding log observables $\ln\Mobs$ are modeled as

780: a Gaussian distribution with mean $\ln M + \ln\Mbias$---where $\Mbias$

781: specifies the offset between the estimate mass and the true mass---and

782: variance $\sigmalnM^2$.  This parameterization serves as the standard

783: case as we generalize $P(\ln\Mobs|M)$ to $P(\ln\Mobs|M,c)$ for

784: analyzing the effect of assembly bias.

785: 

786: A priori, we do not know exactly how the estimated mass of a cluster

787: $\Mobs$ will depend on the cluster's concentration $c$, that is, the

788: correct parameterization for $P(\ln\Mobs|M,c)$.  In detail, this

789: relation may depend on both physical and observational

790: effects. However, we would like to demand a simple wish-list of

791: properties of our parameterization:

792: %

793: \begin{enumerate}

794: \item When marginalized over concentration, $P(\ln\Mobs|M,c)$ should

795: reduce to the Gaussian distribution $P(\ln\Mobs|M)$ of the fiducial

796: case (as required by eq.~[\ref{eq:marginalization}]), independent

797: of any new parameters introduced (i.e.\@ we should keep the total

798: $\ln\Mobs$--$ \ln M$ scatter fixed).

799: \item In order to study how self-calibration is affected as the

800: dependence of $\Mobs$ on $c$ is ``turned on,'' the parameterization

801: should have a tunable parameter. When this tunable parameter is set to

802: zero, our analysis should reduce to the standard case.

803: \end{enumerate}

804: %

805: In the interest of simplicity, we take $P(\ln\Mobs|M,c)$ to be

806: Gaussian in $\ln\Mobs$, and assume that the halo concentration

807: slightly shifts $\ln\Mobs$ relative to $\ln M$, so that the mean and

808: the variance of $\ln\Mobs$ are given by

809: %

810: \begin{eqnarray}

811: \avg{\ln \Mobs|M,\tc} &=& \ln M + \ln M_{\rm bias} + r\sigmalnM\tc \\

812: \Var(\ln \Mobs|M,c) &=& \sigmalnM^2(1-r^2) \ .

813: \end{eqnarray}

814: %

815: In the above expressions, $r$ is the correlation coefficient between

816: $\ln\Mobs$ and $\tc$ at fixed $\ln M$, $\sigmalnM$ is the scatter in

817: $\ln\Mobs$ at fixed $M$, and $\tc$ is defined via

818: %

819: \begin{equation}

820: \tc = \frac{\ln c-\avg{\ln c|M}}{\sqrt{\Var(\ln c|M)}} \ .

821: \end{equation}

822: %

823: Note that when $r=0$, all of the observed scatter in $\ln\Mobs$ at

824: fixed $\ln M$ is intrinsic, and our model reduces to the standard

825: case.  Conversely, for $r=1$, the scatter in $\ln\Mobs$ at fixed $\ln

826: M$ is entirely due to the scatter in halo concentration at fixed mass.

827: As a consistency check, we find that if we marginalize $P(\ln

828: \Mobs|M,c)$ over concentration (assuming a log-normal distribution for

829: $c$ at fixed mass, see e.g.\@ \citealt{Jing00}, \citealt{Bullock01},

830: and \citealt{Neto07}), the resulting distribution $P(\ln\Mobs|M)$ is

831: exactly that of the standard case; that is, our parameterization

832: preserves the total scatter in $\ln\Mobs$ at a given $\ln M$.

833: 

834:   

835: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

836: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

837: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

838: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

839: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

840: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

841: 

842: 

843: \subsection{Survey Assumptions, Cosmological Models, and Nuisance Parameters}

844: 

845: % \begin{turnpage}

846: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}

847: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

848: % \rotate

849: \tablecaption{Survey Assumptions\label{tab:surveys}}

850: \tablewidth{0pt}

851: \tablehead{

852:     \colhead{Survey} &

853:     \colhead{$M_{\rm th}$} &

854:     \colhead{Bin Size} &

855:     \colhead{$N_{\rm bins}$} &

856:     \colhead{Area} &

857:     \colhead{$z_{\rm max}$}\\ 

858:     \colhead{} & 

859:      \colhead{$(\hiMsun)$} & 

860:     \colhead{$(\Delta {\rm log}_{10}\Mobs)$} &   

861:     \colhead{} &

862:     \colhead{$(\rm{deg^2})$}

863: }    

864: \startdata

865: SDSS (optical)  & $10^{13.5}$ & 0.5 & 3   & 7500   & 0.3  \\  

866: DES (optical)    & $10^{13.5}$ & 0.5 & 3   & 5000   & 1     \\

867: SPT (SZ)          & $10^{14.2}$ & 1    & 1  & 4000   & 2     \\

868: LSST (optical)  & $10^{13.5}$ & 0.5 & 3   & 20000   & 2  \\   

869: \enddata

870: %%%%%%%

871: %\tablenotetext{a}{}

872: \tablecomments{All surveys use cells of area $10\deg^2$ and $\Delta z = 0.1$}

873: \end{deluxetable}

874: % \end{turnpage}

875: 

876: 

877: With the Fisher matrix analysis, we statistically forecast the

878: systematic effects for four galaxy cluster surveys: the Sloan Digital

879: Sky Survey (SDSS, \citealt{SDSS}; assuming the volume using

880: photometric data), the Dark Energy Survey

881: (DES\footnote{See http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/}), the South Pole

882: Telescope (SPT\footnote{See http://pole.uchicago.edu/}), and the Large

883: Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST\footnote{See http://www.lsst.org/}).  The

884: survey areas are assumed to be $7500\ \deg^2$ for SDSS, $5000\ \deg^2$

885: for DES, $4000\ \deg^2$ for SPT, and $20000\ \deg^2$ for LSST, with

886: survey depths of $z_{\rm max}=0.3, 1.0, 2.0$ and $2.0$ respectively.  The

887: cells used for the counts-in-cells analysis are assumed to have an

888: area $10\ \deg^2$ and redshift interval $\Delta z =0.1$.  We assume

889: clusters with $\Mobs \geq10^{14.2}\ \hiMsun$ are observed by SPT, and

890: perform no mass binning.  For SDSS, DES, and LSST, the observational

891: threshold is assumed to be $\Mobs\geq 10^{13.5}\ \hiMsun$, and the

892: counts in each of these surveys are binned in three observable bins.

893: The survey parameters for all four surveys are detailed in

894: Table~\ref{tab:surveys}.

895: 

896: While the mass threshold of SZ observations has little redshift

897: dependence \citep[e.g.][]{Carlstrom02}, the mass threshold of optical

898: surveys has more uncertainties.  Clusters with mass $10^{13.5}\

899: \hiMsun$ have been shown to be detectable, with high purity and

900: completeness, with more than 10 bright red galaxies ($\sim 0.4 L_*$)

901: in the SDSS photometric survey out to $z \sim 0.3$ \citep{Koester07,

902: Johnston07}.  We note that our choice of the minimum mass for the

903: optical surveys assumes that such clusters can still be detected with

904: high purity and completeness out to the maximum redshift $z_{\rm max}$.

905: This assumption may be reasonable out to $z=1$, where clusters have

906: been shown to have a robust red sequence, but the efficacy of this

907: method will eventually break down at higher redshifts.  In any case,

908: it will need to be tested in detail with both realistic simulations

909: and the data itself.  We note that for LSST, one may wish to detect

910: clusters using peaks in the lensing shear instead of from assumptions

911: about the galaxy distribution \citep[e.g.][]{Kaiser95,Hennawi05}, in

912: which case self-calibration could serve as a consistency check for the

913: predictions for the observed shear signal made directly from

914: simulations.  In \S\ref{sec:results}, we consider one example case for

915: LSST, which has similar assumptions to the lower $z_{\rm max}$ optical

916: surveys, for reference.

917: 

918: 

919: % \begin{turnpage}

920: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccc}

921: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

922: % \rotate

923: \tablecaption{Fiducial Cosmologies\label{tab:cosmology}}

924: \tablewidth{0pt}

925: \tablehead{

926:     \colhead{Cosmology} &

927:     \colhead{$\OmegaDE$} &

928:     \colhead{$w$} &

929:     \colhead{$\delta_\zeta(k=0.05{\rm Mpc^{-1}})$} &

930:     \colhead{$n$} &

931:     \colhead{$\Omega_bh^2$} &

932:     \colhead{$\Omega_mh^2$} 

933: }

934: \startdata

935: WMAP1 & 0.73 & -1 & $5.07\times10^{-5}$ & 1        & 0.024   & 0.14\\ 

936: WMAP3 & 0.76 & -1 & $4.53\times10^{-5}$ & 0.958 & 0.0223 & 0.128\\  

937: \enddata

938: %\tablenotetext{}{}

939: %%%%%%%

940: %\tablenotetext{a}{}

941: \tablecomments{All of our forecasts assume Plank-like priors: $\sigma(\ln \zeta)=\sigma(\ln \Omega_mh^2) = \sigma(\ln \Omega_bh^2) = \sigma(n) =0.01$, except for $\OmegaDE$ and $w$.}

942: \end{deluxetable*}

943: % \end{turnpage}

944: 

945: 

946: In this work, we consider two sets of cosmological parameters, namely

947: the best fit cosmologies to WMAP1 \citep{WMAP1} and WMAP3

948: \citep{WMAP3}, whose parameter values are listed in

949: Table~\ref{tab:cosmology}.  Both of them are flat $\Lambda$CDM

950: cosmologies but differ mainly in the relative contribution of dark

951: energy to the global energy density, in the normalization of

952: fluctuations ($\delta_\zeta$ or $\sigma_8$), and in the spectral index

953: ($n$).  The impact of these differences on our analysis will be

954: presented in \S\ref{sec:results}.  In our statistical forecast, we do

955: not put any priors on dark energy parameters, but we assume

956: Planck-like priors on the rest of the cosmological parameters (see

957: Table~\ref{tab:cosmology}).  Finally, in our forecast models we use

958: the halo mass function by \citet{Jenkins01}, the bias function by

959: \citet{Sheth01}, and the assembly bias $b^{\rm ab}(M,c)$ found by

960: \citet[][this assumption was shown in Fig.\@ 1]{Wechsler06}.

961: 

962: 

963: With regard to the observable--mass relation, our model involves three

964: nuisance parameters: the bias in the estimated mass ($\ln M_{\rm bias}$),

965: the scatter of $\ln\Mobs$ given $\ln M$ ($\sigma_{\rm \ln M}$), and the

966: cross-correlation coefficient between $\ln\Mobs$ and the normalized

967: halo concentration $\tc$ ($r$).  Throughout, we take $\ln M_{bias}=0$

968: as our fiducial model.  Our choice for the fiducial values for the

969: scatter and the cross-correlation coefficient in each of the surveys

970: requires further discussion.

971: 

972: 

973: Let us first focus on the scatter. For an SPT-like survey, the

974: observational mass proxy is the SZ decrement of the cosmic microwave

975: background due to the hot, ionized gas permeating the inter-cluster

976: medium.  At present, this scatter has only been predicted from

977: numerical simulations but has not been determined from observations.

978: \cite{WhiteM02} argued that the three main sources of scatter are the

979: evolution of the $M$--$T$ relation, asphericity in the matter

980: distribution, and line-of-sight projection.  \cite{Motl05} and

981: \cite{Nagai06} showed that the scatter is 10\%-15\%, and the scaling

982: relation is insensitive to the detailed physical processes involved in

983: galaxy formation, with a good agreement with self-similar models.

984: However, \cite{Shaw07} showed that at least 20\% intrinsic scatter

985: exists due to the internal properties of galaxy clusters.  They also

986: demonstrated that this scatter could be reduced by choosing different

987: aperture radius for defining $M$ and $Y$, or by removing cluster samples

988: with many substructures.  Moreover, it may be possible to reduce the

989: scatter even further using cluster structural properties.  For

990: example, \cite{Afshordi07} proposed a ``fundamental plane'' among the

991: cluster mass, the total SZ flux, and the SZ half-light radius

992: $R_{\rm SZ,2}$; in simulations, this relation reduced the scatter in mass

993: estimates to $\sim$ 14\%.  Further, \cite{Haugboelle07} found that by

994: constructing an empirical model for the SZ profile, which includes a

995: scaling parameter $r_0$, they could reduce the scatter down to 4\%.

996: In this work, we take the largest of these range of values, namely

997: 20\%, as our fiducial scatter for SPT.  If SPT is insensitive to halo

998: assembly bias for this largest possible scatter, then it will also be

999: insensitive for smaller values of scatter.

1000: 

1001: 

1002: In optical surveys, the usual observational mass proxy is the optical

1003: richness, namely the galaxy number in a galaxy cluster. Other choices

1004: are also possible, including the total optical luminosity or

1005: combinations of parameters \citep[e.g.][]{Rykoff07,Becker07,Reyes08}.

1006: Determining a reasonable choice for the scatter for a DES-like survey

1007: is somewhat less straightforward, as predictions from simulations are

1008: less robust and the scatter can highly depend on both the richness

1009: measure and the cluster finder.  \cite{Gladders07} applied a

1010: self-calibration analysis to a catalog from the Red-Sequence Cluster

1011: Surveys (RCS), finding the fractional scatter $f_{\rm sc}$ to be $0.69 \pm

1012: 0.20$ and $0.71^{+0.19}_{-0.17}$ (based on different priors).  Using

1013: the velocity information of galaxies in maxBCG clusters,

1014: \cite{Becker07} estimated that the optical richness had a mass

1015: dependent scatter which varied from about $0.75$ for massive clusters

1016: to $1.2$ for group scale objects.  Cross-correlation with the X-ray

1017: data on these same clusters suggests a considerably smaller scatter of

1018: about $0.5$ (E.\@ Rozo et al.\@ in preparation).  Here, we choose $0.5$ as

1019: our fiducial scatter value for two reasons: First, as we shall see,

1020: even with this amount of scatter, halo assembly bias has a significant

1021: impact on self-calibration studies; this small scatter thus provides a

1022: baseline value for the impact of assembly bias.  Second, we note that

1023: current optical richness estimates have all used fairly crude measures

1024: of richness.  We think it is highly probable that in the near future

1025: we will start seeing richness measures that are considerably more

1026: strongly correlated with mass than those used at present.  Thus, we

1027: have opted to select a scatter value that is closer to the lowest

1028: scatter estimated in current samples.

1029: 

1030: 

1031: We now turn to the correlation relating observable and concentration,

1032: $r$.  Currently, there are no observational constraints on $r$ for

1033: either optical or SZ mass proxies.  We also find no quoted values for

1034: the correlation between SZ and halo concentration in the literature,

1035: although we note that \citet[][]{Reid06} and \citet[][]{Shaw07}

1036: investigated the impact of halo concentration on the scatter in

1037: $Y_{\rm SZ}$ and found that a considerable fraction of the scatter in SZ

1038: is due to variations in halo concentration at fixed mass.  In this

1039: work, we choose the fiducial value to be $r=0.4$, which is the value

1040: observed in simulations of clusters using the hydrodynamical ART code

1041: (D.\@ Rudd 2008, private communication).

1042: 

1043: 

1044: The $\Mobs$--$c$ correlation $r$ for optical clusters is somewhat

1045: better understood.  We are not aware of current observational

1046: constraints on the correlation between optical cluster richness and

1047: halo concentrations, although with a sufficiently large sample, this

1048: value could in principle be measured from lensing data.

1049: \citet[][]{Zentner05} and \citet[][]{Wechsler06} have shown that the

1050: amount of substructures in a cluster-size halo is negatively

1051: correlated with halo concentration.  On the other hand, selection

1052: effects could modify this correlation.  For instance, high

1053: concentration halos might, on average, be assigned higher richness

1054: than low concentration halos of the same mass due to the larger galaxy

1055: density near the cluster core.  In this work, we choose $r=-0.5$ as

1056: our fiducial value, which is roughly consistent with the numerical

1057: results of \citet[][]{Zentner05} and \citet[][]{Wechsler06}.  We note

1058: that the results presented here assume that all of these parameters

1059: are constant with both redshift and mass.

1060: 

1061:   

1062: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1063: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1064: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1065: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1066: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1067: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1068: 

1069: 

1070: \begin{figure*}[t!]

1071: %\plotone{Contours.eps}

1072: \plotone{f4.eps}

1073: %\centerline{\epsfxsize=4.7truein\epsffile{f4.eps}}

1074: \caption{

1075: Systematic errors for $\OmegaDE$ (\emph left) and $w$ (\emph right)

1076: estimators, as a function of scatter in the observable given mass

1077: ($\sigmalnM$) and the correlation between observable and halo

1078: concentration ($r$).  The ratios of the systematic error and the

1079: statistical uncertainty ($|\delta\theta|/\sigma_{\rm\theta}$) are shown for

1080: three of our main survey assumptions: SDSS, DES, and SPT, from top to

1081: bottom.  High scatter value and strong correlation/anti-correlation

1082: correspond to high deviation of estimators.  We also mark the fiducial

1083: values of $\sigmalnM$ and $r$ in each panel according to our current

1084: knowledge from observations and numerical simulations. We note that

1085: these plots are also applicable to other surveys (e.g. X-ray) for

1086: which the survey volume and mass threshold are the same as those

1087: assumed here.  See \S\ref{sec:results} for discussion.

1088: }

1089: \label{fig:Contours}

1090: \end{figure*}

1091: 

1092: 

1093: \section{Results and Discussion}\label{sec:results}

1094: 

1095: We now present the effect of assembly bias for a set of specific

1096: assumptions about galaxy cluster surveys.  We focus on the systematic

1097: errors in the two dark energy parameters $\OmegaDE$ and $w$ when

1098: compared with the statistical errors expected from each survey,

1099: $|\delta \OmegaDE|/{\sigma_{\Omega_{\rm DE}}}$ and $|\delta

1100: w|/\sigma_w$.  Figure~\ref{fig:Contours} shows how these two ratios

1101: vary with the scatter in $\ln\Mobs$--$\ln M$ ($\sigma_{\rm \ln M}$) and

1102: the cross-correlations coefficient of $\ln\Mobs$--$\tc$ ($r$) for our

1103: fiducial SDSS, DES, and SPT surveys.  All plots assume a WMAP3

1104: cosmology.  As can be seen, a high degree of correlation and/or large

1105: scatter can result in significantly biased cosmological estimates for

1106: both DES and SPT, while for the current SDSS the statistical

1107: uncertainty is sufficiently large that halo assembly bias is

1108: insignificant.

1109: 

1110: 

1111: How halo assembly bias differently affects DES and SPT is worth

1112: discussing.  For a fixed scatter and correlation coefficient, the

1113: cosmological constraints from DES are considerably less biased than

1114: those of SPT.  The reason for this difference is two-fold. First, DES

1115: clusters probe a lower mass scale than SPT clusters do.  This

1116: difference is important because the effect of concentration on halo

1117: bias is important for high mass halos, but non-existent for halos of

1118: mass near $M_*\sim 10^{13} \hiMsun$ \citep{Wechsler06}.  Consequently,

1119: the cosmological constraints coming from low mass clusters (groups)

1120: should be unbiased.\footnote{Although the low mass clusters (groups)

1121: are less affected by assembly bias, they are subjected to more

1122: statistical errors.  For the most constraining power, the choice of

1123: mass threshold should be made based on the scatter, the completeness,

1124: and the purity.}  The second important difference between SPT and DES

1125: is that in our fiducial surveys we have assumed binned counts for DES

1126: clusters but only thresholded counts for SPT clusters.  Consequently,

1127: all the cosmological information provided by the shape of the halo

1128: mass function (which is unaffected by assembly bias) does not

1129: contribute to the SPT constraints.  Thus, SPT constraints are

1130: considerably more sensitive to the effects of assembly bias than the

1131: DES constraints given the same scatter and correlation coefficient.

1132: 

1133: 

1134: That is not, however, the end of the story.  In order to fairly

1135: compare SPT to DES, one also needs to consider the regions of

1136: parameter space relevant to each of these surveys.  We noted earlier

1137: that numerical simulations predict that the intrinsic scatter in the

1138: SZ signal is approximately $20\%$ or even less

1139: \citep[e.g.][]{Motl05,Nagai06,Shaw07,Haugboelle07}.  As can be seen

1140: from the bottom panels of Figure~\ref{fig:Contours}, these scatter

1141: values do not result in significant biasing of the recovered

1142: cosmological parameters for any value of $r$.  Although the expected

1143: intrinsic scatter is small, the projection effect may raise or even

1144: dominate the total scatter \citep[see e.g.][]{WhiteM02,Hallman07}.

1145: \citet{Holder07} found that the SZ background can generate errors

1146: larger than $20\%$ in recovered flux if $\sigma_8$ is near 0.7.  If

1147: the extra scatter is due to the randomly aligned structures along the

1148: line of sight, then we do not expect assembly bias to have a significant

1149: impact. On the other hand, if the projection effect is dominated by

1150: nearby structures, the extra scatter due to projection will be

1151: strongly correlated with the environment, resulting in higher

1152: correlation between concentration and observable.  In fact, if the

1153: scatter due to projection is as high as \citet{Holder07} predicted and

1154: is also dominated by nearby correlated structure, the effect of

1155: assembly bias may be strengthened.

1156: 

1157: 

1158: Photometric surveys like DES, in contrast, are very likely to be

1159: sensitive to the impact of assembly bias.  In this case, we know that

1160: the optical richness--mass relation has a scatter $\gtrsim 50\%$

1161: (e.g. \citealt{Gladders07, Becker07}; E.\@Rozo et al.\@ in preparation).

1162: As can be seen in the middle panels of Figure~\ref{fig:Contours}, even

1163: moderate correlations between $\Mobs$ and $c$, e.g.\@ $|r|\gtrsim

1164: 0.5$, can result in significant biasing of the recovered cosmological

1165: parameters.  It is likely, therefore, that cosmological analysis of

1166: the DES optical cluster sample will need to include halo assembly bias

1167: in order to avoid systematic errors in dark energy inference, unless

1168: the analysis can be done with an observable that is more tightly

1169: correlated with mass.  On the other hand, DES will have additional

1170: mass measurements, including its weak lensing and SZ signals from SPT.

1171: If these measurements are included in the analysis, the effect of

1172: assembly bias may be diminished.  Observational inference of assembly

1173: bias may even be possible with mass profile measurements.

1174: 

1175: 

1176: We note that in these figures, the only differences are between the

1177: survey volumes and the threshold in $M_{\rm obs}$, without assuming any

1178: other information specific to the optical or SZ surveys.  Therefore,

1179: these results are applicable to other surveys (e.g.\@ X-ray surveys)

1180: with the same survey conditions.

1181: 

1182: 

1183: In Figure~\ref{fig:surveys} we (1) explore the systematic effects due

1184: to assembly bias under different cosmological parameters (WMAP1 and

1185: WMAP3) and (2) extend the calculation to include an assumption for an

1186: LSST-like optical cluster survey.  (For SDSS, DES, LSST: $r=-0.5$ and

1187: $\sigma_{\rm\ln M}=0.5$. For SPT: $r=0.4$ and $\sigma_{\rm\ln M}=0.2$.)

1188: First, the most relevant difference between WMAP1 and WMAP3 is that

1189: WMAP3 has higher $\OmegaDE$ and lower normalization $\delta_\zeta$ or

1190: $\sigma_8$ values, as listed in Table~\ref{tab:cosmology}.  As a

1191: result, the WMAP3 cosmology has fewer clusters, and the sample

1192: variance of the clusters is smaller. These differences increase the

1193: statistical errors of the surveys \citep[see also][]{LimaHu07}, thus

1194: making the impact of assembly bias less significant in the WMAP3

1195: cosmology than in the WMAP1 cosmology.  Overall, our main conclusions

1196: remain unchanged.  Second, for LSST, we find the systematic due to

1197: assembly bias is very significant for our fiducial values; this

1198: systematic is likely to be significant for even small values of

1199: $\sigmalnM$ and $r$.

1200: 

1201: 

1202: We especially note that the systematic of assembly bias impacts

1203: $\OmegaDE$ and $w$ differently.  From the survey point of view,

1204: increasing $z_{\rm max}$ above $1$ largely improves the constraints on

1205: $w$, but barely improves the constraints on $\OmegaDE$.  For $w$, the

1206: systematic error due to assembly bias increases monotonically with

1207: $z_{\rm max}$, while for $\OmegaDE$, this systematic error somewhat

1208: cancels and then changes its sign as $z_{\rm max}$ increases.  This

1209: difference is due to the fact that $\OmegaDE$ and $w$ affect the

1210: observed large-scale structure differently in different regimes.  Dark

1211: energy affects the observed large-scale structure through two

1212: mechanisms: the growth function and the comoving volume.  High

1213: $\OmegaDE$ and high $w$ both result in stronger suppression of

1214: structure.  On the other hand, the volume dependence works

1215: differently: high $\OmegaDE$ and low $w$ correspond to larger volumes.

1216: The effects work in opposite directions for $\OmegaDE$; higher

1217: $\OmegaDE$ leads to less structure but more volume. Before the onset

1218: of dark energy domination, the comoving volume effect dominates; after

1219: dark energy take-over, the growth function effect dominates.  Thus

1220: near the onset of dark energy domination, the observed structure is

1221: insensitive to $\OmegaDE$, leading to no extra information from this

1222: regime.  The effects of assembly bias on $\OmegaDE$ before and after

1223: the dark energy domination have opposite signs and thus cancel each

1224: other.  On the other hand, for $w$, both effects work in the same

1225: direction; thus, including more survey volume will always increase the

1226: amount of information on $w$, and the systematic effects do not

1227: cancel.  That is why the systematic effect of assembly bias on $w$

1228: increases monotonically with $z_{\rm max}$.

1229: 

1230: 

1231: \begin{figure}[t!]

1232: %\plotone{surveys.eps}

1233: \plotone{f5.eps}

1234: \caption{

1235: Impact of assembly bias for two different cosmologies and four

1236: survey conditions.  The ratio $|\delta\theta|/\sigma_\theta$ for

1237: $\OmegaDE$ and $w$ are plotted as circles and squares respectively.

1238: Solid and open symbols are for WMAP1 and WMAP3 cosmologies

1239: respectively.  DES and LSST are clearly sensitive to assembly bias,

1240: while SPT is marginally sensitive to it, with the effect being

1241: stronger for WMAP1 than WMAP3.  A current SDSS-like survey is not

1242: sensitive to assembly bias.  (Fiducial values assumed for other

1243: parameters include: $r=-0.5$ and $\sigma_{\rm \ln M}=0.5$ for SDSS, DES,

1244: and LSST, and $r=0.4$ and $\sigma_{\rm \ln M}=0.2$ for SPT)

1245: }

1246: \label{fig:surveys}

1247: \end{figure}

1248: 

1249: 

1250: Another interesting question is how the constraints on cosmological

1251: parameters are degraded if we include $r$ as an additional nuisance

1252: parameter that needs to be marginalized over.  However, as we

1253: mentioned earlier, the fact that the likelihood function is

1254: non-Gaussian in $r$ if $r$ is close to $\pm 1$ implies that the Fisher

1255: matrix estimates may not apply.  Therefore, the following constraints

1256: with marginalization over $r$ are only to be taken as rough

1257: indicators.

1258: 

1259: 

1260: We use moderate values for $r$ ($0.4$ for SZ and $-0.5$ for optical)

1261: to compare the cosmological constraints assuming (1) fixed $r$ values,

1262: and (2) $r$ to be a free parameter in the Fisher matrix.

1263: Table~\ref{tab:constraints} contains our results for three of the

1264: survey assumptions.  As can be seen, while the error bars for DES are

1265: only slightly affected by marginalization over $r$, those for SPT

1266: increase by a factor of 2 to 3.  The reason is again related to

1267: the mass binning; since our fiducial SPT survey does not include mass

1268: binning, there is no information about the shape of the halo mass

1269: function, which, if present, can improve the constraints on the

1270: scatter in the observable--mass relation. In the absence of this shape

1271: information, the constraints on the scatter is modest, which means

1272: that marginalization of $\OmegaDE$ and $w$ over the acceptable region

1273: of the parameter space will reach areas with very large scatter.

1274: Since those areas are highly sensitive to the effects of halo assembly

1275: bias, the marginalized errors will be significantly larger.  In the

1276: last row of Table~\ref{tab:constraints} (SPT5), we assume five narrow

1277: observable bins for SPT with bin size $\Delta {\rm log}_{0}\Mobs =

1278: 0.2$. In this case, the dark energy constraints are barely degraded

1279: after marginalizing over $r$.  Thus, mass binning is a crucial

1280: component of the data analysis for both DES and SPT to maximize their

1281: potential as cosmological probes.  Note that, in all cases, $r$ itself

1282: cannot be well-constrained like other nuisance parameters.  Since the

1283: dependence on $r$ only affects the sample variance but not the

1284: abundance, the information for constraining $r$ is insufficient.

1285: 

1286: 

1287: % \begin{turnpage}

1288: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccccccccc}

1289: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1290: % \rotate

1291: \tablecaption{Self-Calibration Constraints. \label{tab:constraints}}

1292: \tablewidth{0pt}

1293: \tablehead{

1294:      &   

1295:     \multicolumn{4}{c}{Self-Calibration with Fixed $r$} &  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Self-Calibration Marginalized over $r$}    \\

1296:     \cline{2-5}  \cline{7-11}\\

1297:    \colhead{Survey} &

1298:     \colhead{$\OmegaDE$} &    

1299:     \colhead{$w$} &

1300:     \colhead{$\ln\Mbias$} & 

1301:     \colhead{$\sigmalnM^2$} &

1302:       &

1303:     \colhead{$\OmegaDE$} &    

1304:     \colhead{w} &

1305:     \colhead{$\ln\Mbias$} & 

1306:     \colhead{$\sigmalnM^2$} &

1307:     \colhead{$r$}

1308:     }

1309: \startdata

1310: SDSS	&	0.066	&	0.240	&	0.411	&	0.086	&	&	0.074	&	0.251	&	0.460	&	0.108	&	0.294	\\

1311: DES	&	0.006	&	0.045	&	0.051	&	0.022	&	&	0.006	&	0.047	&	0.053	&	0.025	&	0.125	\\

1312: SPT	&	0.010	&	0.076	&	0.104	&	0.028	&	&	0.025	&	0.177	&	0.355	&	0.149	&	1.300	\\

1313: SPT5	&	0.009	&	0.061	&	0.079	&	0.017	&	&	0.010	&	0.062	&	0.087	&	0.027	&	0.357	\\ \enddata

1314: %%%%%%%

1315: %\tablenotetext{}{}

1316: \tablecomments{

1317: Cosmological constraints with fixed cross-correlation coefficient $r$,

1318: and with marginalized $r$.  We assume a WMAP3 cosmology, and the

1319: nuisance parameters are the same as those in Fig.\@~\ref{fig:surveys}.

1320: After marginalization over $r$, the constraints from binned cluster

1321: samples (SDSS, DES, and SPT5) are barely degraded, while the

1322: constraints from thresholded samples (SPT) are degrade by a factor of

1323: 2 to 3.  This result demonstrates the importance of mass binning.  In

1324: all cases, $r$ cannot be well-constrained like other nuisance

1325: parameters since it only affects the sample variance but not the

1326: abundance.  We emphasize, however, that the second part of this table

1327: are to be interpreted as rough indicators, since the likelihood

1328: function may not be Gaussian in $r$.

1329: }

1330: \end{deluxetable*}

1331: % \end{turnpage}

1332: 

1333: 

1334: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1335: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1336: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1337: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1338: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1339: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1340: 

1341: 

1342: \section{Summary}

1343: \label{sec:conclusions}

1344: 

1345: Self-calibration analysis in galaxy cluster surveys relies on the

1346: dependence of the halo bias on mass to simultaneously constrain

1347: cosmology and the cluster observable--mass distribution.  Recent work

1348: has shown that halo bias is sensitive not only to halo mass, but also

1349: to secondary parameters related to the assembly history.  Here we

1350: consider the effect of halo concentration on the bias as a specific

1351: case of the secondary parameters (generally termed assembly bias), and

1352: show how it might affect self-calibration analyses.  In particular, if

1353: halo selection depends on halo concentration, the observed clustering

1354: amplitude of the corresponding cluster sample will deviate from that

1355: of a random selection of clusters with the same mass distribution.

1356: This deviation in the observed clustering amplitude can result in

1357: biased inferences of cosmological parameters, depending on (1) the

1358: amount of scatter between halo mass and the observational mass proxy,

1359: and (2) the correlation between the mass proxy and halo concentration.

1360: For current surveys like SDSS, the statistical uncertainty is still

1361: sufficiently large that the systematic error due to assembly bias is

1362: negligible.  On the other hand, for an SPT-like survey, the expected

1363: small amount of intrinsic scatter between the SZ decrement and halo

1364: mass suggests that the impact of assembly bias on parameter estimation

1365: is negligible; however, if the projection effect results in higher

1366: scatter in high density regions, assembly bias may have significant

1367: impact.  For a DES-like survey, where the mass proxy is likely to have

1368: considerably larger scatter, we estimate that assembly bias can

1369: displace the recovered dark energy parameters from their true values

1370: by about $1\sigma$.  For an LSST-like survey, this systematic error

1371: can exceed $2\sigma$ in $w$.  In the last two cases, halo assembly

1372: bias may need to be explicitly included in the cosmological analysis

1373: to avoid biasing of the recovered dark energy parameters.  We

1374: emphasize, however, that our analysis has assumed the specific

1375: dependence of halo bias on halo concentration found by

1376: \citet{Wechsler06}.  If this dependence is shown to be smaller at high

1377: masses, if the correlation relating the observable mass proxy and halo

1378: concentration can be shown to be small, or if observables that are

1379: more tightly correlated with mass can be found, the effect will be

1380: mitigated.  We have shown that binning in mass is crucial for both

1381: optical and SZ surveys, as marginalization over this correlation

1382: coefficient can increase the expected errors of dark energy parameters

1383: by a factor of a few if we only use thresholded counts.

1384: 

1385: 

1386: \acknowledgments 

1387: We thank Marcos Lima, Michael Busha, David Rapetti, Doug Rudd, Gil

1388: Holder, David Weinberg, and Andrew Zentner for useful discussions.  We

1389: are grateful to the anonymous referee for helpful comments.  The IDL

1390: contour plots are modified from the routine provided at

1391: http://www.davidpace.com.  We also thank OSU CCAPP and KIPAC for hospitality

1392: and support during our visits.  HW and RHW were supported in part by

1393: the U.S. Department of Energy under contract number DE-AC02-76SF00515.

1394: ER was supported by the Center for Cosmology and Astro-Particle

1395: Physics (CCAPP) at the Ohio State University.

1396: 

1397: 

1398: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1399: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1400: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1401: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1402: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1403: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1404: 

1405: 

1406: \appendix

1407: \section{Biased Parameter Estimation from Incorrect Models}

1408: \label{app:fisher-implementation}

1409: 

1410: In this section, we explicitly implement the modified Fisher matrix

1411: formalism developed in \S\ref{sec:fisher} for the case in which both

1412: $P_A(\vec x|\theta)$ and $P_B(\vec x|\theta)$ are Gaussian.  Let

1413: $\vec\mu(\theta)$ and $\C(\theta)$ be the mean and covariance matrix

1414: defining $P_A(\vec x|\theta)$ in model $A$, which is related to the

1415: likelihood function; let $\vec\mu^B(\theta)$ and $\C^B(\theta)$ be the

1416: corresponding quantities in model $B$, which represent the observed

1417: data.  Note that $\vec\mu(\theta)$ and $\C(\theta)$ contain the model

1418: parameter $\theta$ that we are trying to fit, while $\vec\mu^B$ and

1419: $\C^B$ contain the true parameter value $\theta_t$.  The

1420: log-likelihood function of model $A$ reads (up to a constant)

1421: %

1422: \begin{equation}

1423: 2\mathcal{L} = -2\ln L(\vec x|\theta)=\ln\det \C+(\vec x - \vec\mu)^T\C^{-1} (\vec x - \vec\mu)  \ .

1424: \end{equation}

1425: %

1426: Taking the derivative with respect to $\theta$ and averaging over

1427: $\vec x$, the maximum likelihood estimator $\hat\theta$ can be found

1428: by solving

1429: %

1430: \begin{equation}

1431: \avg{2\mathcal L_{,i}} = {\rm Tr}[\C^{-1}\C_{,i}(1-\C^{-1}\avg{\D})+\C^{-1}\avg{\D_{,i}}]|_{\theta = \hat\theta} =0 \ ,

1432: \end{equation}

1433: %

1434: where $\avg{\D} = \C^B + (\vec\mu^B-\vec\mu)(\vec\mu^B-\vec\mu)^T$ and

1435: $\avg{\D_{,i}} = -2\vec\mu_{,i}(\vec\mu^B-\vec\mu)^T$.  We then set

1436: $\hat\theta = \theta_t + \delta\theta$, linearize this equation with

1437: respect to $\delta\theta$, and solve for $\delta\theta$.

1438: 

1439: 

1440: To proceed further, we focus on two simple examples of interest.  The

1441: first example is the effect of assembly bias; model $A$ corresponds

1442: the standard self-calibration, while model $B$ corresponds to

1443: self-calibration with assembly bias.  In this case, model $B$ changes

1444: the sample variance but not the mean; thus

1445: $\vec\mu(\theta)=\vec\mu^B(\theta)$ for all $\theta$ values, but

1446: $\C(\theta)\neq \C^B(\theta)$.  After linearizing with respect to

1447: $\delta\theta$, the linear equations for $\delta\theta$ read

1448: %

1449: \begin{equation}

1450: {\rm Tr}\{ \C^{-1}\C_{,i}(1-\C^{-1}\C^B + \sum_j\C^{-1}\C_{,j}\C^{-1}\C^B\delta\theta_j 

1451: )\}+ 2 \sum_j\vec\mu_{,j}^T\C^{-1}\vec\mu_{,i}\delta\theta_j  = 0  \ .

1452: \end{equation}

1453: %

1454: After solving the linear equations,  we obtain the parameter deviation $\delta\theta$  

1455: %

1456: \begin{equation}

1457: \delta\theta_j =\sum_i (\bold{F}^{-1})_{ij} {\rm Tr}\{\frac{1}{2}{\C^{-1}\C_{,i}\C^{-1}(\C^{\rm B}-\C)}\} \ ,

1458: \end{equation}

1459: %

1460: where

1461: %

1462: \begin{equation}

1463: {F}_{ij} = \vec\mu_{,i}^T\C^{-1}\vec\mu_{,j} + \frac{1}{2}{\rm Tr}\{\C^{-1}\C_{,i}\C^{-1}\C_{,j}\}

1464: \end{equation}

1465: %

1466: is the Fisher matrix of the Gaussian likelihood function.  Note that

1467: the bias in the recovered parameters is proportional to the difference

1468: between models $A$ and $B$.

1469: 

1470: 

1471: Note that in analyzing the data generated by model $B$ using model $A$

1472: changes not only the recovered parameters but also their error bars.

1473: By performing a similar calculation, the modified Fisher matrix with

1474: systematics now reads

1475: %

1476: \begin{equation}

1477: {\tilde F}_{ij}=\vec\mu^{T}_{,i} \bold C^{-1} \vec\mu_{,j} + 

1478: \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}[\bold C^{-1} \bold C_{,i}\bold C^{-1} \bold C_{,j}\C^{-1}\C^{\rm B}] \ .

1479: \end{equation}

1480: %

1481: The error bar for all parameters estimated in model $A$ using the data

1482: generated by model $B$ can be recovered by inverting ${\bf \tilde F}$.

1483: However, in the case of counts-in-cells, the likelihood function is

1484: not perfectly Gaussian; it is convolution of Poisson and Gaussian

1485: \citep[see e.g.][]{LimaHu04,HuCohn06}.  The modified Fisher matrix

1486: thus reads

1487: %

1488: \begin{equation}

1489: {\tilde F}_{ij}=\vec\mu^{T}_{,i} \bold C^{-1} \vec\mu_{,j} 

1490: + \frac{1}{2} {\rm Tr}[\bold C^{-1} \bold S_{,i}\bold C^{-1} \bold S_{,j}\C^{-1}\C^{\rm B}]  \ .

1491: \end{equation}

1492: %

1493: 

1494: 

1495: As a second example, we consider the case in which model $B$ changes

1496: the mean but not the variance of the data. One example is the effect

1497: of modified gravity on the weak lensing shear cross power spectrum

1498: \citep[e.g.][]{HutererLinder07}.  Here model $A$ is the General

1499: Relativity prediction, while model $B$ is the modified gravitational

1500: prediction.  In this case, $\vec\mu(\theta) \neq \vec\mu^B(\theta)$

1501: while $\C(\theta) = \C^B(\theta)$.  The linear equation for

1502: $\delta\theta_j$ reads

1503: %

1504: \begin{eqnarray}

1505: {\rm Tr}\{

1506: {\sum_j\C^{-1}\C_{,i}\C^{-1}\C_{,j}\delta\theta_j} 

1507:  \}

1508: -2 (\vec\mu^{\rm B}-\vec\mu)^T\C^{-1}\vec\mu_{,i} +2 \sum_j \vec\mu_{,j}^T\C^{-1}\vec\mu_{,i}\delta\theta_j

1509:  = 0 \ ,

1510: \end{eqnarray}

1511: %

1512: which is equivalent to

1513: %

1514: \begin{equation}

1515: \delta\theta_j=\sum_i ({\bf F}^{-1})_{ij}    \{  (\vec\mu^{\rm B}-\vec\mu)^T\C^{-1}\vec\mu_{,i} \} \ .  

1516: \end{equation}

1517: %

1518: Our formalism thus provides a different and generalizable route of

1519: obtaining the systematic error.

1520: 

1521: %\bibliography{/Users/hao-yiwu/Desktop/master_refs}

1522: 

1523: \bibliography{ms}

1524: 

1525: \end{document}

1526: