1:
2: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
3: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
5:
6: \shorttitle{MULTI-RESOLUTION WEAK LENSING MASS RECONSTRUCTION}
7: \shortauthors{KHIABANIAN \& DELL'ANTONIO}
8:
9: \newcommand{\boldx}{\mbox{\boldmath$x$}}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13:
14: \title{A MULTI-RESOLUTION WEAK LENSING MASS RECONSTRUCTION METHOD}
15:
16: \author{H. Khiabanian\altaffilmark{1,2}}
17: \email{hossein@het.brown.edu}
18: \author{I.P. Dell'Antonio\altaffilmark{1,2}}
19: \email{ian@het.brown.edu}
20: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics, Brown University, Providence, RI
21: 02912}
22: \altaffiltext{2}{Visiting Astronomer, Kitt Peak National Observatory,
23: National Optical Astronomy Observatory, operated by the Association of
24: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA) under cooperative
25: agreement with the National Science Foundation.}
26: \begin{abstract}
27:
28: Motivated by the limitations encountered with the commonly used
29: direct reconstruction techniques of producing mass maps, we have
30: developed a multi-resolution maximum-likelihood reconstruction
31: method for producing two dimensional mass maps using weak
32: gravitational lensing data. To utilize all the shear information,
33: we employ an iterative inverse method with a properly selected
34: regularization coefficient which fits the deflection potential at
35: the position of each galaxy. By producing mass maps with multiple
36: resolutions in the different parts of the observed field, we can
37: achieve a comparable level of signal to noise by increasing the
38: resolution in regions of higher distortions or regions with an
39: over-density of background galaxies. In addition, we are able to
40: better study the sub-structure of the massive clusters at a
41: resolution which is not attainable in the rest of the observed
42: field. We apply our method to the simulated data and to a four
43: square degree field obtained by the Deep Lens Survey.
44:
45: \end{abstract}
46:
47: \keywords{cosmology: observations - galaxies: clusters: general -
48: gravitational lensing}
49:
50: \maketitle
51:
52: \section{INTRODUCTION}
53:
54: Recent access to deep, wide field, multi-color optical imaging has
55: established weak gravitational lensing as an effective tool for
56: discovering new clusters of galaxies and measuring the dark matter
57: content of the Universe. Unlike other techniques for selecting
58: clusters, such as observing the X-ray emission by the hot
59: intra-cluster medium, the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect on the CMB or
60: over-densities of galaxies in coordinate and/or color space, weak
61: gravitational lensing does not rely on the luminous matter and
62: provides a baryon-independent measure of the mass distribution in
63: clusters.
64:
65:
66: Since the pioneering work of \citet{Tyson_90}, significant
67: progress has been made both on the theoretical front
68: \citep{Miralda_91,KS93,Squires_Kaiser_96,Seitz_Schneider_98} and
69: in the quality of the observational data. It is now possible to
70: measure systematic ellipticities as small as 0.005 on scales of
71: many arc-minutes \citep{Parker_07, Jain_06, Wittman_2000}.
72: However, there are still advances to be made in reconstructing the
73: surface mass distribution in order to create high resolution and
74: accurate mass maps using all of observables such as lens and
75: source redshifts (both spectroscopic and photometric),
76: magnification, and distortion measurements from strong lensing
77: arcs.
78:
79: In general, there are two classes of reconstruction methods using
80: weak gravitational lensing data: direct and inverse methods. The
81: direct methods, primarily based on the work done by \citet{KS93},
82: estimate the surface mass density by approximating a local value
83: for the shear (the tidal gravitational field) from the observed
84: ellipticities of the background galaxies. In these methods, to
85: avoid the divergence of the statistical uncertainty of the surface
86: mass density, the data needs to be smoothed. The smoothing length
87: is a free parameter in the reconstruction and there is no
88: a priori way of determining it.
89:
90: Furthermore, the transformation of the surface mass density
91: \begin{equation}
92: \label{eqn:sheetdegn}
93: \kappa \rightarrow \kappa' = \alpha \kappa + (1-\alpha),
94: \end{equation}
95: where $\alpha$ is an arbitrary constant does not change the expectation
96: value of the measured ellipticities \citep{Schneider_Seitz_95}.
97: Due to this degeneracy in the mass sheet, in the absence of
98: redshifts for the sources and lenses, the mass of the clusters
99: cannot be completely determined from the shear information alone.
100: In principle, adding extra information from other observables such
101: as magnification can lift the mass sheet degeneracy
102: \citep{Broadhurst_95}, but this information cannot be simply
103: incorporated in the direct reconstruction methods.
104:
105: Inverse methods aim to find the best fit to the data
106: \citep{Squires_Kaiser_96,Bartelmann_96} and have previously only
107: been used to study a small number of individual clusters with a
108: low number of background sources. Because of the large number of
109: degrees of freedom, any maximum likelihood analysis of weak
110: lensing data requires some kind of smoothing to reconstruct a mass
111: map. Methods which bin \citep{Bridle_98} or smooth
112: \citep{Bartelmann_96} the data to regularize the solution do not
113: use all the information provided by each source galaxy. To utilize
114: all the shear information, one can employ an iterative inverse
115: method which fits for the deflection potential at the position of
116: each galaxy. Applying the smoothing via the {a priori} expectation
117: of the surface mass density with a properly selected
118: regularization weight is a self-consistent, although
119: computationally expensive way of reconstructing mass maps from the
120: weak lensing data. Furthermore, the magnification information can
121: be simply incorporated in inverse methods by constraining the
122: minimization \citep{Seitz_Schneider_98,Bridle_98}. Strong lensing
123: information from observed arcs can be included in the same way
124: \citep{Bradac_05}.
125:
126: The necessary uniform smoothing of the data in direct methods of
127: reconstruction (and some of the inverse methods) limits the use of
128: the additional information and also produces an inconsistent noise
129: level. The resolution of the mass maps is limited by the strength
130: of the weak lensing signal and the number density of the
131: background sources which varies across the observed field due to
132: Poisson statistics, and also due to background large scale structure.
133: In this paper, we present a regularized maximum likelihood method
134: which can produce a single mass map with multiple resolutions in
135: the different parts of the observed field. Thus, we can achieve a
136: comparable noise level by increasing the resolution at the areas
137: with an over-density of sources. Also, the sub-structure of the
138: massive large clusters which measurably affect the ellipticities
139: of the background galaxies in a vast area can be studied in a map
140: with a resolution which may not be attainable in the rest of the
141: observed field. The lower the shear values, the larger the number
142: of sources that are needed to achieve a consistent signal to
143: noise per pixel across the filed. Therefore, we can create a map
144: with a higher resolution at the areas where the shear values are
145: larger, without reducing the overall spatial signal to noise of
146: the detection.
147:
148: The only attempt to make a multi-resolution mass map is a
149: multi-scale maximum-entropy method by \citet{Marshall_02} which
150: uses the intrinsic correlation functions with varying width. They
151: report that applying this method to their data did not show a
152: significant difference from the single-scale method they also
153: studied.
154:
155: The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in \S~2, we briefly
156: present the basics of gravitational lensing and in \S~3, we
157: describe the details of our technique. In \S~4, we test the method
158: with a simulated one square degree field, distorted with five mock
159: clusters and in \S~5 we apply it to one of the four square degree
160: fields of the Deep Lens Survey \citep{Wittman_02}. Finally, we
161: summarize our method and describe the future plans in \S~6.
162:
163:
164:
165: \section{LENSING RELATIONS}
166:
167: The convergence $\kappa$, the dimensionless surface mass density
168: of a lens, with a projected mass density of $\Sigma(\boldx)$ is
169: defined by $\kappa(\boldx) = \Sigma(\boldx) /
170: \Sigma_{\mathrm{cr}}$, where $\Sigma_{\mathrm{cr}} = ({c^2}/{4 \pi
171: G})\;{D_{\mathrm{s}}}/(D_{\mathrm{d}} D_{\mathrm{ds}})$ is the
172: critical surface mass density, $D_{\mathrm{d}}$ and
173: $D_{\mathrm{s}}$ are the angular diameter distances of the lens
174: and the source from the observer, and $D_{\mathrm{ds}}$ is the
175: angular diameter of the lens from the source. The angular position
176: in the lens plane is denoted by $\boldx$. The convergence is
177: related to the deflection potential $\psi(\boldx)$, by Poisson's
178: equation $\kappa = \frac{1}{2} \nabla^2 \psi(\boldx)$.
179: %
180: The relation between the deflection potential and the shear is
181: described by two components, $\gamma = \gamma_1 + \mathrm{i}
182: \gamma_2$, where $\gamma_1 = \frac{1}{2}(\psi_{,11} - \psi_{,22})$
183: and $\gamma_2 = \psi_{,12}$, with $\psi_{,ij} = \partial^2 \psi /
184: \partial x_i \partial x_j$.
185:
186: The images are both distorted and magnified. The distortion is due
187: to the tidal gravitational field, described by shear and the
188: magnification is caused by both isotropic and anisotropic
189: focusing, described by both convergence and shear. The ratio of
190: the flux observed from the image and the true flux of the source
191: defines the magnification, given by $\mu =
192: ({\det{\mathcal{A}}})^{-1} = ({(1-\kappa)^2 - |\gamma|^2})^{-1}$.
193:
194: To study the effects of gravitational lensing on background
195: sources, an ellipse is fitted to the shape of each galaxy. The
196: complex ellipticity of a source is defined by the brightness
197: quadrupole moments $Q_{ij}$ as $\epsilon = (Q_{11} - Q_{22} + 2
198: \mathrm{i} Q_{12})/(Q_{11} + Q_{22})$. The transformation between
199: the image's quadrupole moments $Q^{(i)}$ and the source's moments
200: $Q^{(s)}$ due to gravitational lensing is given by $Q^{(i)} =
201: \mathcal{A} \; Q^{(s)} \; \mathcal{A}$ \citep{KS93}, where
202: $\mathcal{A}$ is the Jacobi matrix
203: \begin{equation}
204: \label{Jacobi}
205: \mathcal{A} = (1-\kappa)\; \left( \begin{array}{cc}
206: 1 - g_1 & -g_2 \\
207: -g_2 & 1 + g_1 \\ \end{array} \right).
208: \end{equation}
209: The parameter $g = \gamma / (1 - \kappa)$ is the reduced shear.
210: The transformed shapes of objects does not depend on the
211: convergence and shear separately, but on the reduced shear. This
212: means $\kappa$ and $\gamma$ are not direct observables and only
213: their combination in $g$ (or a function of $g$) can be measured
214: from image ellipticities. The shapes are also invariant under the
215: transformation $g \rightarrow 1/g^*$, so one can define the
216: complex distortion as
217: \begin{equation}
218: \label{distort_def}
219: \delta = \frac{2g}{1 + |g|^2}\;,
220: \end{equation}
221: which is invariant under a such transformation \citep{Schneider_Seitz_95}.
222:
223:
224: \section{THE METHOD}
225:
226: In this regularized maximum-likelihood method, our goal is to
227: describe the surface mass density distribution over the observed
228: field by fitting for the deflection potential on a
229: multi-resolution grid. We have adapted the prescription of
230: \citet{Seitz_Schneider_98} in constructing the grid of the
231: deflection potential in order to accommodate for the
232: multi-resolution fitting. In a regular maximum-likelihood method,
233: a $\chi^2$ term of the form
234: \begin{equation}
235: \label{chi2}
236: \chi^2 = \frac{1}{N_g}\;\sum_{k=1}^{N_g} \frac{\left(\epsilon_k - \langle
237: \epsilon \rangle (\boldx_k)\right)^2}{\sigma_\epsilon}
238: \end{equation}
239: is minimized, where $N_g$ is the number of galaxies, $\epsilon_k$
240: is the measured complex ellipticity of galaxy $k$ located at
241: $\boldx_k$ ($1 \leq k \leq N_g$), and $\langle \epsilon \rangle
242: (\boldx_k)$ is the expectation value of the average ellipticity at
243: $\boldx_k$ which depends on the deflection potential and its
244: derivatives at that point. Should the source redshift information be
245: provided, the expectation value of the ellipticity
246: could be modified with a cosmological weight function \citep{Lombardi_99}.
247:
248: Due to the unmeasurable intrinsic elliptical shape of the weakly
249: distorted galaxies, each single object does not provide enough
250: information for lensing reconstruction. Despite this, the number
251: of degrees of freedom in minimizing $\chi^2$ is nominally the
252: number of data points (i.e. galaxies) subtracted by the number of
253: fitting points. Therefore, the degrees of freedom in a wide field
254: reconstruction is quite large and minimizing $\chi^2$ by itself,
255: gives $\psi$ enough freedom to be able to make it unrealistically
256: small which yields to a potential that reconstructs the noise in
257: the data and results in a wrong solution. Adding a regularization
258: term with a proper weight helps to constrain $\chi^2$ and avoid
259: over-fitting it. In our method, we minimize a function of $\psi$
260: defined as
261: \begin{equation}
262: \label{equF}
263: \mathcal{F} = \frac{1}{2} \chi^2 + \lambda \; \mathcal{R} \; ,
264: \end{equation}
265: where $\lambda$ is the regularization coefficient. The $\chi^2$ is
266: regularized with a modified zeroth-order regularization function
267: \begin{equation}
268: \label{reg}
269: \mathcal{R} = \sum_{m=1}^{N_x}\;\sum_{n=1}^{N_y} ({\kappa}_{mn} - {p}_{mn})^{2}\;,
270: \end{equation}
271: where $\kappa_{mn}$ is the surface mass density at the grid points
272: of the reconstruction grid and ${p}_{mn}$ is the prior. The main
273: advantage of using this function compared to the entropy inspired
274: regularization functions is its simplicity. In principle, the
275: entropy inspired functions guarantee $\kappa$ to be a positive
276: number. But in real numerical analysis when $\kappa$ becomes very
277: small, these functions and their derivatives do not behave
278: smoothly. Furthermore, in the presence of a mass-sheet degeneracy,
279: it is not clear that enforcing the positivity of kappa is useful in
280: deriving a solution. Choosing a function as simple as
281: $\mathcal{R}$ which is zero when $\kappa$ is equal to the prior is
282: sufficient and ensures the smoothness of the reconstruction.
283:
284: The magnification information can be included
285: by adding to $\mathcal{F}$, a $\chi^2_\mu$ term of the form
286: \begin{equation}
287: \label{eqn:chi2_mu}
288: \chi^2_\mu = \frac{1}{N_\mu}\;\sum_{l=1}^{N_\mu} \frac{\left( \mathcal{M}_l -
289: \mu(\boldx_l) \right)^2}{\sigma_\mu},
290: \end{equation}
291: with $N_\mu$ number of magnification data points $\mathcal{M}_l$
292: located at $\boldx_l$ where the predicted value of
293: magnification is given by $\mu(\boldx_l)$.
294:
295: The parameter $\lambda$ in equation (\ref{equF}), known as the
296: regularization coefficient, represents the compromise between the
297: best fit (i.e the answer that minimizes $\chi^2$) and the closest match to
298: the prior knowledge (i.e. the answer that minimizes
299: $\mathcal{R}$). A proper way of finding the best value for the
300: regularization coefficient has been the subject of much debate.
301: For instance, \citet{Seitz_Schneider_98} constrain $\chi^2$ to be
302: equal to the degrees of freedom in order to find a good guess for
303: $\lambda$. It is however not clear what a ``degree of freedom'' is.
304: Because each galaxy shape is mostly due to the intrinsic galaxy
305: ellipticity, the effective number of degrees of freedom per galaxy
306: is much less than 1.
307: \citet{Bridle_98} derive a value for $\lambda$ in a Bayesian
308: manner, which also has the disadvantage of not easily adapting to
309: the data in a realistic numerical analysis. Whatever method
310: employed, the value of the regularization coefficient must be low
311: enough so that the solution follows the data and high enough so
312: that it avoids the numerical artifacts caused by over-fitting. To
313: determine this value, we minimize $\mathcal{F}$ as a function of
314: $\lambda$ and compare the resulting $\chi^2$ versus $\mathcal{R}$ by scaling
315: them to values between 0 and 1. The minimum value of $\chi^2$ is obtained
316: when $\lambda = 0$ (the best fit solution, corresponding to
317: $\chi^2_\mathrm{scaled}$ of 0 and $\mathcal{R}_\mathrm{scaled}$ of 1), and its
318: maximum value is obtained when only $\mathcal{R}$ is minimized (the smoothest
319: solution, corresponding to $\chi^2_\mathrm{scaled}$ of 1 and
320: $\mathcal{R}_\mathrm{scaled}$ of 0.) The intersection between
321: $\chi^2_\mathrm{scaled}$ vs. $\mathcal{R}_\mathrm{scaled}$ curve and the line
322: $\chi^2_\mathrm{scaled} = \mathcal{R}_\mathrm{scaled}$ determines the proper
323: value of the regularizaion coefficient as shown in
324: Figure~\ref{fig:sims_chi2R80}. It should be noted that this method dictates
325: approximately equal weights to the $\chi^2$ term and the regularization
326: term. However, a different level of agreement
327: with the prior knowledge (in our case, smoothing) is achieved by selecting an
328: intersecting line that has a different slope.
329: Despite the fact that this method requires a fair amount of computation time,
330: it ensures the agreement between the data and the {a priori} expectation.
331:
332: Our goal is to apply this method to the wide field optical data
333: obtained by the Deep Lens Survey. Because the analytical
334: expectations for the average ellipticities of galaxies do not take
335: the noise in the data and the shape measurements into account, we
336: estimate the expectation value of the average ellipticities as a
337: function of shear based on the simulated data.
338:
339: In our first suite of simulations, we produce a series of 17.36
340: square arc-minute simulated fields in which the simulated galaxies
341: are distributed between magnitudes of 22 and 25.5 in the $R$ band.
342: This is approximately the magnitude range of the objects used from
343: the DLS data for the mass reconstruction analysis. The ellipticity
344: distribution of the simulated galaxies is assumed to be the
345: ellipticity distribution of the galaxies in the UDF
346: \citep{Beckwith_05}. Because of the small PSF and high signal to
347: noise detection in the UDF data, the measured shapes are nearly
348: accurate estimates of the real shapes of the galaxies. Therefore,
349: despite the uncertainties due to the finite number of galaxies,
350: the derived ellipticity distribution is a fair approximation. To
351: include as many galaxies as possible, we assume that their average
352: shape does not depend on redshift. We choose the $V$ band data of
353: the UDF to determine the ellipticity distribution, because it has
354: the highest signal to noise and is close in wavelength to the $R$
355: band of the Deep Lens Survey, where the shapes of our sources are
356: measured. In total, we generate $\sim$~120,000 simulated galaxies
357: to estimate the expectation value of the ellipticity as a function
358: of distortion.
359:
360: We distort the simulated fields according to equation
361: (\ref{Jacobi}), varying $0 \leq g_1 \leq 0.6$, while $g_2$ is
362: fixed at zero. This distortion step is performed at the
363: pixel-scale of the UDF (0.03 arc-seconds). The DLS' PSF is almost
364: always well-sampled, therefore, the simulated images are first
365: linearly transformed onto the DLS pixel-scale (0.25 arc-seconds)
366: and then smoothed with a Gaussian to simulate the 0.9 arc-second
367: seeing of the data. An appropriate background noise is also added
368: to match the simulations to the properties of the actual deep
369: field images.
370:
371: Encouragingly, $\langle \epsilon_2 \rangle$ averages to zero and
372: only $\langle \epsilon_1 \rangle$ increases with shear in our
373: simulations. This demonstrates that it is correct to assume that
374: $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ have the same orientation as $g_1$
375: and $g_2$. To avoid the degeneracy between $g$ and $1/g^*$, we use
376: the distortion parameter introduced in equation
377: (\ref{distort_def}) and define $\langle \epsilon \rangle
378: (\boldx_k) = f(|\delta|^2) \delta$. The function $f(|\delta|^2)$
379: is found from the simulations (where $g_2 = 0, \delta_2 = 0$) by
380: \begin{equation}
381: \label{f_delta2}
382: f(|\delta|^2) = \langle \epsilon_1 \rangle / \delta_1\;.
383: \end{equation}
384:
385: The derived expectation values from our simulations along with the
386: analytical approximations \citep{Schneider_Seitz_95} are shown in
387: Figure~\ref{fig:e1e2_delta2}. Using the same set of simulations,
388: we also determine the dispersion in the ellipticity of galaxies
389: $\sigma_\epsilon$ as a function of distortion.
390:
391: Once one exceeds a shear value of 0.6, the shapes of more than 50
392: per cent of the objects in the simulations are not well measured
393: due to splitting by the detection software. This causes a bias in
394: the expected ellipticity estimates. Therefore, we extrapolate and
395: use $f(|\delta|^2)$ and $\sigma_\epsilon$ derived from $|\delta|
396: \leq 0.88$ distortions for the higher values as well. This
397: extrapolation is acceptable, because real highly elliptical
398: galaxies are very rare (while high measured ellipticities are most
399: often caused by unresolved blends of multiple galaxies).
400: Therefore, we can and do filter them out of the data without
401: losing any significant weak lensing information.
402:
403: \section {IMPLEMENTATION OF THE METHOD}
404:
405: To create a $N_x \times N_y$ map of the surface mass density
406: distribution, the observed field is covered with a
407: $(2N_x+4)\times(2N_y+4)$ grid of the deflection potential
408: $\psi_{ij}$. Because the convergence and shear are second order
409: derivatives of the deflection potential, adding a constant or a
410: linear term in $\boldx$ to $\psi$ leaves them unchanged and $\psi$
411: needs to be constrained to be constant at four of the grid points.
412: For computational simplicity, we have decided to keep the four
413: corners of the grid fixed.
414:
415: The values of the shear $\gamma_{ij}$ and convergence
416: $\kappa_{ij}$ at the grid points are obtained by second order
417: finite-differencing, hence, the extra rows and columns at each
418: side of the grid. The values of shear and convergence at the
419: position of each galaxy in the data are calculated via bilinear
420: interpolation. The shear and convergence are computed locally and
421: the coefficients relating the deflection potential to
422: $\kappa(\boldx_k)$ and $\gamma(\boldx_k)$ depend only on the
423: geometry of the grid and the location of the galaxy at $\boldx_k$,
424: therefore, the coefficients can be calculated once and stored to
425: speed up the computations.
426:
427: To compute the regularization function $\mathcal{R}$, we need to
428: know the values of $\kappa_{mn}$. To fix the ringing effects in
429: the projected mass maps caused by second order numerical
430: differentiation of $\psi$, we block average $\psi_{ij}$ at four
431: neighboring grid points and then take the derivatives of the
432: deflection potential on this new grid. Hence, the size of the
433: final mass map is $N_x \times N_y$.
434:
435: The components of the shear are also computed on the block
436: averaged deflection potential grid. Because $\mathcal{M}_l$ are
437: scattered on the field and are not necessarily located on the grid
438: points, the matrix $\mathcal{H}_{l}^{mn}$ is defined to determine
439: the amount by which each grid point is weighted to compute the
440: expected magnification at $\boldx_l$, changing equation
441: (\ref{eqn:chi2_mu}) to
442: \begin{equation}
443: \label{eqn:chi2_mu_sum}
444: \chi^2_\mu = \frac{1}{N_\mu}\;\sum_{l=1}^{N_\mu} \frac{1}{{\sigma_\mu}} \; \left(
445: \mathcal{M}_l - \sum_{m, n = 1}^{N_x, N_y}
446: \mathcal{H}_{l}^{mn} \mu_{mn} \right)^2.
447: \end{equation}
448: The elements of $\mathcal{H}$ only depend on the positions of the
449: magnification data and the structure of the grid. Therefore, they
450: too can be calculated once and stored, speeding up the analysis.
451: In the presence of magnification data, $\psi$ needs to be
452: constrained to be constant only at three grid points.
453:
454: To minimize $\mathcal{F}$, we use a conjugate-gradient method as
455: encoded in the {\tt{frprmn}} routine by \citet{Press_92}. We need
456: to provide this algorithm the first derivatives of $\mathcal{F}$
457: with respect to $\psi_{ij}$ which can be derived with a
458: combination of analytical and numerical methods. In general,
459: \begin{equation}
460: \frac{\partial \mathcal{F}}{\partial \psi_{ij}} = \frac{\partial
461: \mathcal{F}}{\partial \gamma_1 (\boldx_k)} \times \frac{\partial \gamma_1
462: (\boldx_k)}{\partial \psi_{ij}} + \frac{\partial \mathcal{F}}{\partial
463: \gamma_2 (\boldx_k)} \times \frac{\partial \gamma_2 (\boldx_k)}{\partial
464: \psi_{ij}} + \frac{\partial \mathcal{F}}{\partial
465: \kappa (\boldx_k)} \times \frac{\partial \kappa (\boldx_k)}{\partial
466: \psi_{ij}} \;.
467: \end{equation}
468: The derivatives of $\kappa$, $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ with
469: respect to $\psi_{ij}$ only depend on the geometry of the grid and
470: the position of the galaxies. They can be derived from the stored
471: coefficients which relate the convergence and two components of
472: shear to the deflection potential at the grid points.
473:
474: The reconstruction procedure starts at a low resolution which
475: depends on the area and the number of galaxies of the data. At
476: this level the mass maps are smooth enough and the regularization
477: is not required ($\lambda = 0$). At the end of this step, two very
478: coarse maps of the surface mass density and the deflection
479: potential are produced. To increase the resolution, we linearly
480: expand and smooth the maps with a Gaussian function ($\sigma = 1$
481: pixel, equal to the inherent correlation length of the maps) and
482: use the map of $\psi$ as the initial potential and the map of
483: $\kappa$ as the prior map of the second minimization.
484:
485:
486: By finding the proper value of $\lambda$, we are able to increase
487: the resolution to the limit that the data allows us. The
488: resolution of a mass map is limited by the strength of the weak
489: lensing signal and the number density of the background sources
490: which varies across the observed field due to a variation in
491: source counts and possible background large scale structure. To
492: obtain the highest possible resolution, the second step can be
493: repeated: expanding and smoothing the $\psi$ and $\kappa$ maps of
494: the previous reconstruction and using them as the initial
495: potential and prior, respectively.
496:
497: In principle, in a maximum likelihood method, the number of
498: unknowns (values of the deflection potential on the grid points)
499: must be at least the number of equations (the measured
500: ellipticities of the galaxies). However, one single galaxy in the
501: weak lensing limit does not provide enough shear information for
502: one grid point because its ellipticity tensor is dominated by the
503: random component. Additionally, the Poisson variation in source
504: counts and the noise in the shape measurements have undetermined
505: effects on the signal to noise across the field. Furthermore, the
506: numerical artifacts in minimizing $\mathcal{F}$, which also limit
507: the resolution are not well predicted. A maximum resolution for a
508: given data set can be approximated based on its number of source
509: galaxies, but an exact final resolution of the mass maps can not
510: be predetermined. If the signal to noise in a map is not
511: sufficient, we are bound to decrease its overall resolution,
512: though we may be able to maintain a high resolution at some parts
513: of the field with our multi-resolution reconstruction technique.
514:
515: The multi-resolution grid is essentially the same as the
516: single-resolution grid described earlier. It only requires an
517: extensive amount of bookkeeping at the edges of the sub-grid
518: regions. The shear and convergence computations for the galaxies
519: in the middle regions of the sub-grids are performed similarly to
520: the single-resolution computations. For the galaxies which lie on
521: the edge or corner cells, the values of the deflection potential
522: at the required positions in the field with no real grid points
523: allocated for them are interpolated. As in the single-resolution
524: construction, the coefficients relating the convergence and shear
525: to the deflection potential depend only on the position of the
526: galaxies and the geometry of the main grid and the sub-grids, thus
527: this step is required to be performed only once.
528:
529: In order to simplify the calculations, the resolutions of the
530: rectangular sub-grids, which may be different from one to another,
531: are required to be 2$n$ times higher than the original resolution.
532: The maps of $\psi$ and $\kappa$ produced in the final
533: single-resolution reconstruction are used as the initial potential
534: and the prior, respectively. The proper regularization coefficient
535: is derived similarly to the single-resolution reconstruction. The
536: minimization of the function $\mathcal{F}$ is performed over all
537: grid points in the main grid and sub-grids, except for the four
538: corners that are held constant.
539:
540:
541: \section {SIMULATED DATA}
542:
543: We simulate a one square degree field distorted by 5 clusters with
544: the NFW profile \citep*{NFW_97} at a redshift of 0.4 with masses
545: ranging between $10^{13}$ to $10^{15}$ Solar masses. The mass and
546: position of each cluster is detailed in Table~\ref{tab:NFWlenses}
547: and the analytical expectations of the surface mass density map
548: due to these clusters is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sims_massmaps}
549: (top left). Clusters number 1 and 2 are chosen to be close to each
550: other to test our ability to separate bright adjacent peaks using
551: the multi-resolution method. Cluster number 3 is a typical
552: isolated cluster and clusters 4 and 5 are are intentionally chosen
553: to be low-mass clusters to study the lower signal to noise limits
554: of the reconstruction by our technique.
555:
556: The angular diameter distances are evaluated assuming a
557: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with $\Omega_m = 0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda =
558: 0.7$, and the Hubble constant $H_0 = 70
559: \;\mathrm{km}\;\mathrm{s}^{-1}\;\mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$. The objects
560: are randomly oriented galaxies. The ellipticity distribution is
561: assumed to be the ellipticity distribution of the galaxies in the
562: UDF and their number density follows a power law distribution
563: \citep{Tyson_88}. The galaxies are divided between seven redshift
564: layers based on their magnitudes, which range between 23 and 27 in
565: the $R$ band: $z_1 = 0.27$, $z_2 = 0.45$, $z_3 = 0.68$, $z_4 =
566: 0.90$, $z_5 = 1.20$, $z_6 = 1.95$ and $z_7 = 3.00$. These
567: logarithmically determined layers fairly simulate the redshift
568: distribution of the galaxies in the Deep Lens Survey and varying
569: these values, especially the furthest redshift, does not change
570: the total distortion by a measurable amount. After distorting, we
571: convolve the image to a seeing of 0.9 arc-seconds.
572:
573: To measure the shape of the galaxies, we employ the same procedure
574: used in the Deep Lens Survey's pipeline \citep{Wittman_06}.
575: Briefly, we use {\tt SExtractor} \citep{Bertin_96} to detect the
576: objects. The improve upon the shape measurements which are
577: not optimal for weak lensing studies, we employ the
578: {\tt ellipto} program, which can produce more accurate
579: shape measurements via an iterative weighting algorithm, where the
580: weight function is an elliptical Gaussian \citep{Bernstein_02}.
581: We apply the same selection criteria in
582: magnitude and size applied to the DLS data to select objects to be
583: used in making the mass maps \citep{Wittman_06}. We require that the moments be
584: successfully measured by {\tt ellipto} and employ the size measure defined by
585: \citet{Bernstein_02} to filter out the objects smaller than the PSF ({\tt
586: ellipto}-size of $5 \; \mathrm{pixel}^2$). We only keep the objects
587: brighter than the magnitude 25.5. After filtering out the unwanted objects, we
588: have a catalog of $\sim$~109,000 galaxies.
589:
590: We start off the reconstruction at a resolution of 3 arc-minutes
591: per pixel on the grid of the deflection potential with a constant
592: initial value over the field which yields a mass map with a 6
593: arc-minute per pixel resolution. At this level, the maps are
594: coarse enough that there is no need for any regularization, hence
595: $\lambda = 0$. To find the proper regularization coefficient for
596: the higher resolution reconstructions we follow our recipe and
597: run minimizations with coefficients between $\lambda = 0$ and $\lambda = 10$
598: in addition to minimizing only $\mathcal{R}$ at each step to finally produce a
599: $1'.5$ per pixel mass map. Figures~\ref{fig:sims_chi2R80} and
600: \ref{fig:sims_massmaps} (top right) show $\chi^2_\mathrm{scaled}$
601: vs. $\mathcal{R}_\mathrm{scaled}$ for the
602: last step of this reconstruction process and the final mass map,
603: respectively. Although we do not probe the entire parameter space directly at
604: the highest resolution, we vary the values of the deflection
605: potential evenly over the lowest resolution grid with small and
606: large increments which does not produce a lower $\chi^2$, assuring
607: that the conjugate-gradient method reaches the minimum and does
608: not stop at a possible local minima.
609:
610: Due to the low signal to noise detection of the lowest mass
611: clusters, it is not possible to increase the resolution of the
612: overall map. However, it is still possible to increase the
613: resolution at the vicinity of the first and second clusters,
614: where we increase the resolution of the mass map in a square
615: region by a factor of two to $0'.75$ per pixel. In the
616: single-resolution map, these clusters are reconstructed without
617: any separation (i.e. as a single object). The resulting
618: multi-resolution convergence map (Fig.~\ref{fig:sims_massmaps},
619: bottom right) shows the cluster not only with the expected
620: symmetric profile, but also very well separated (with the peaks
621: detected at $2'.65$ of each other, in very good agreement with the
622: $2'.9$ separation of the input profile).
623:
624: Because of the differential nature of our fitting function, the
625: pixels of the mass maps created by our method are not strongly
626: correlated with each other. Therefore, the total surface mass
627: density of each deflector can be measured by summing over the
628: values of the pixels which are above a predetermined threshold. We
629: measure $\kappa_{\mathrm{total}}$ within the $r_{200}$ radius of
630: each deflector, setting the detection threshold at 2 times the
631: background rms. At this threshold level, all five deflectors along
632: with three spurious objects are detected. Obviously, increasing
633: the detection threshold will remove the spurious objects, however, the
634: weakest deflector would not be detected either (for instance at 3 times the
635: background rms). In the absence of other
636: observational data such as redshift or magnification information,
637: the mass sheet degeneracy cannot be broken. Nonetheless, our measurements
638: (Table~\ref{tab:sim_kappaxy}) are in close agreement in positions and total
639: surface mass densities with the measurements from an analytically calculated
640: map of convergence (Fig.~\ref{fig:sims_massmaps}, top left)
641: \citep{Wright_Brainerd_2000}. A mass sheet corresponding to the degeneracy
642: coefficient of $\alpha \sim 0.88$ (Eqn. \ref{eqn:sheetdegn})
643: transforms the measured surface mass density to the expected surface mass
644: within the estimated errors.
645: The effects of this degeneracy in our inverse
646: method are most probably suppressed, because the reconstruction
647: process is started with the assumption that the field is empty of
648: any structure. This is an initial condition that cannot be
649: incorporated in a direct method reconstruction.
650:
651: We also reconstruct the convergence map of a catalog made by
652: distorting the same simulated source galaxies with five deflectors
653: located at the same position but with half the strength (i.e. the
654: $M_{200}$ mass of each cluster is reduced by half.) As expected
655: \citep{Bridle_98}, the noise level and the regularization
656: coefficient at each step of the reconstruction remain the same as
657: the original reconstruction process. However, the two weakest
658: deflectors are not detected at all when the detection threshold is
659: set at 3 times the background rms. We similarly reconstruct the
660: convergence map of a catalog distorted by the original deflectors
661: but with only half the background galaxies. The change in the
662: number of sources also changes the regularization coefficient.
663: After determining the proper value of $\lambda$ and making the
664: final mass map, the measured signal of the three more massive
665: clusters is very close to the signal measured from the original
666: mass map while the two least massive ones are not detected.
667:
668:
669: In addition, we reconstruct the surface mass density employing a
670: direct method \citep{KS93, Wittman_06}, using the weight function
671: introduced by \citet{Fischer_Tyson_97}
672: \begin{equation}
673: \label{eqn:Tyson_weight}
674: W(r) = (1 - e^{-\frac{1}{2}({r^2}/{r^2_{\mathrm{in}}})}) \;
675: e^{-\frac{1}{2}({r^2}/{r^2_{\mathrm{out}}})},
676: \end{equation}
677: with $r_{\mathrm{in}} = 1'.1$ and $r_{\mathrm{out}} = 12'.5$.
678: The atmospheric and optical distortions of the shapes of
679: the background sources result in suppressed signals.
680: We correct for these effects by employing the method
681: introduced by \citet{Bernstein_02} and approximate the amount of
682: required adjustments to the ellipticities of each source galaxy. In the
683: resulting mass map (Fig.~\ref{fig:sims_massmaps}, bottom left), when the
684: detection threshold is set at 2 times the background rms, we are able to
685: detect all five deflectors along with nine spurious objects.
686:
687: The pixels in the direct method map are highly correlated. Moreover, because
688: of the weight function (Eqn.~\ref{eqn:Tyson_weight}),
689: it is the convolved surface mass density that is measured from this
690: map. Therefore, it is not proper to compare the $\kappa_{\mathrm{total}}$
691: measurements with the previous measurements, and thus the direct reconstruction
692: map is only suitable to study the number count of clusters and possibly the
693: relative strength of their signal.
694:
695: To estimate the statistical significance of detecting clusters at
696: different resolutions given our data, we perform a set of Monte Carlo
697: simulations and create a number of source catalogs in which
698: the ellipticity components of one galaxy is given to another,
699: though their positions are not changed. The mass map for each
700: catalog is created by starting at the initial resolution of the
701: original mass map and the same procedure is followed to achieve
702: the final resolution using the same regularization coefficients of
703: the original reconstruction process at each step.
704: Figure~\ref{fig:sims_boot_prob} shows that there are not any
705: objects in the Monte Carlo catalogs with signals larger than or
706: equal to the combined signal of the first and second clusters,
707: where the detection threshold is set at 1.5 times the background.
708: This is also true for the third cluster. The histogram in
709: Figure~\ref{fig:sims_boot_prob} can also be interpreted as the
710: probability distribution that the peaks are real detections. We calculate
711: the probability of measuring a signal within the $r_{200}$ radius
712: of each deflector that is equal to its $\kappa_{\mathrm{total}}$
713: by measuring the probability of finding the same signal in randomly selected
714: regions of the Monte Carlo mass maps (Table~\ref{tab:sim_kappaxy}).
715: When there are no detected objects with a given signal, a rough lower limit
716: for the probability of detection being real can be estimated by the inverse of the
717: number of the Monte Carlo simulations per detected objects in the original
718: catalog with that signal \citep[][and references within]{Wall_03}.
719: %
720: In addition, because the $r_{200}$ of each cluster is a known priori, we can
721: estimate the 1-$\sigma$ error for the measured total
722: surface mass density of the clusters, using the same set of Monte
723: Carlo simulations.
724: %
725: This Monte Carlo analysis shows that we have been able to detect
726: the more massive clusters with a high probability of being real
727: detections and also measure their total surface mass density in
728: good agreement with the analytical input. The total surface mass
729: density measurements for the lower mass clusters are also in good
730: agreement with the analytical input. However, the high number of
731: detected objects in the Monte Carlo simulation with similar
732: signals to those of the less massive clusters, suggests a lower
733: probability that any detection peak is a real object.
734:
735:
736: \section {WIDE FIELD OPTICAL DATA}
737: \label{sec:DLS}
738:
739: We also apply our method to reconstruct the mass distribution over
740: a $4 \deg^2$ field with deep optical imaging ($R \leq 26$),
741: obtained by the Deep Lens Survey. The DLS is a multi-color survey
742: of five separate patches of sky with a consistently good image
743: quality ($\leq 0.9''$) in the $R$ band (where the shapes of the
744: source galaxies are measured). We do not intend to break the mass
745: sheet degeneracy in this paper and only use the shear information
746: in the data. We run our method on the DLS field 2 (F2) centered at
747: RA = $09^{h}19^{m}32^{s}.4$, DEC = $+30^{\circ}00'00''$. For the
748: weak lensing analysis, the data is cleaned of unsuitable
749: objects \citep{Wittman_06}.
750: Stars and any object smaller than the PSF size are removed, using
751: the {\tt ellipto}-size vs. magnitude diagram. The bright end of
752: the locus which contains saturated objects and bright galaxies is
753: also filtered out. We also only keep the galaxies with successfully measured
754: intensity moments (by {\tt ellipto}) which are brighter than $R=25$ to reduce
755: the noise due to the faintest and noisiest galaxies. After filtering the
756: unwanted objects out, there are $\sim$~140,000 galaxies left in
757: the data set (Fig.~\ref{fig:F2_magsize}).
758:
759: In the same way as described in the previous section, we start the
760: reconstruction process at a very low resolution of 6 arc-minutes
761: per pixel without regularizing the $\chi^2$, that produces a 12
762: arc-minute per pixel mass map. The process is continued and the
763: higher resolution mass maps with the appropriate regularization
764: coefficients are created. After four steps, the final mass map
765: with a resolution of $1'.5$ per pixel is created
766: (Fig.~\ref{fig:F2_massmaps}, left). This figure (right) also shows
767: the direct mass reconstruction of this field with $r_{\mathrm{in}}
768: = 2'.9$ and $r_{\mathrm{out}} = 24'.4$
769: (Eqn.~\ref{eqn:Tyson_weight}).
770:
771: The largest signal in this field is due to a set of known clusters
772: (the Abell 781 complex) which consists of several independent
773: components at redshifts of 0.29-0.43 \citep{Geller_2005}. In the
774: final single-resolution mass map, the sub-structure of this system
775: is not very well resolved. However, the signal due to this complex
776: is high enough to allow a higher resolution reconstruction which
777: the rest of the field does not permit. Therefore, an area ($0.09
778: \deg^2$) around this region for the multi-resolution
779: reconstruction is chosen. The resulting mass map is shown in
780: Figures~\ref{fig:F2_massmap160g} and \ref{fig:F2_massmap160g_a781}, in which
781: three out of the four spectroscopically confirmed components of this system
782: are very well resolved. Two other bright peaks also appear in the vicinity
783: of this system, which will require more investigation to be
784: confirmed. We also perform the multi-resolution reconstruction on
785: two random regions of this field void of areas with large signal.
786: The result is mass maps in which the noise has been fitted for
787: rather than the signal, showing that a higher global resolution is
788: not attainable with this source catalog (Fig.~\ref{fig:F2_random160g}).
789:
790:
791: The same Monte Carlo method described earlier is employed to
792: estimate the statistical significance of detecting clusters in
793: this field. Neither the $r_{200}$ radii nor the redshifts of the
794: cluster candidates in this field are a priori known. Therefore,
795: we measure the total isophotal signal, setting the detection
796: threshold is set at 1.5 times the background rms.
797: Figure~\ref{fig:F2_boot_prob} shows the number of the detected
798: objects with a given total signal per catalog. This graph
799: indicates that the number of detected objects per catalog with
800: signals larger than or equal to those of the top two cluster
801: candidates is insignificant, thus they are detected with very high
802: signal to noise and their realness is highly probable. However,
803: the high number of objects per one Monte Carlo catalog with
804: signals equal to the lower ranking objects in the DLS field
805: suggests that these objects have a much lower probability of being
806: real detections. Conversely, the results implifies that a significant number
807: of ``clusters'' detected at this level are spurious.
808:
809:
810: \section {CONCLUSION}
811:
812: In this paper we have introduced a maximum-likelihood method for
813: weak lensing convergence map reconstructions. This method, which
814: is primarily based on the prescription of
815: \citet{Seitz_Schneider_98} is able to produce multi-resolution
816: mass maps that can be used to achieve comparable noise levels in
817: regions of higher distortion or regions with an over-density of
818: background sources. In addition, the sub-structure of massive
819: clusters can be better studied at a resolution that is not
820: attainable in the rest of the field. The expectation value of the
821: ellipticities of sources is estimated via realistic simulations
822: and the regularization coefficient is properly chosen to be what
823: the data dictates itself.
824:
825: We test the performance of our method on a one square degree
826: simulated field and conclude that reconstructing mass maps does
827: not depend on the initial conditions. Although we did not expect
828: to break the mass sheet degeneracy, our surface mass density
829: measurements are in good agreement with the analytical
830: expectation. The effects of this degeneracy seem to be suppressed in the
831: simulations, because the reconstruction process is initiated with the a
832: priori assumption that there are no structures in the field. The
833: relatively high source number density of the simulated field
834: ($\sim$~30 galaxies per square arc-minute), is only sufficient to
835: detect the top four massive deflectors with high signal to noise
836: and the fifth ranking cluster ($M_{200} \sim$~$0.7 \times 10^{14}$
837: Solar masses) is not detected when the detection threshold is set
838: to remove all spurious detections. Reducing the source number
839: density to $\sim$~15 galaxies per square arc-minute, lowers the
840: signal to noise for the less massive clusters and both fourth
841: ($M_{200} \sim$~$1.3 \times 10^{14}$ Solar masses) and fifth
842: ranking clusters are not resolved. However, the total surface mass
843: density of the top three clusters measured from the low source
844: density catalog is very similar to the previous measurements from
845: the original catalog. In addition, we reconstruct a
846: multi-resolution mass map of this field with the highest
847: resolution of $0'.75$ per pixel, in which the first and second
848: clusters are successfully separated and the expected symmetric
849: profiles are resolved. The Monte Carlo type simulations created by
850: shuffling the ellipticities of the source galaxies in the
851: simulated field demonstrate that the less massive the clusters,
852: the higher the number of detected objects with similar signal,
853: solely due to random orientation of background sources. From these
854: simulation, we also estimate the probability for the
855: peaks' detections to be real.
856:
857: We also report a preliminary convergence map of a $4 \deg^2$ field
858: obtained by the DLS and reconstruct a multi-resolution mass map.
859: This map, unlike the single-resolution one, successfully shows the
860: sub-structure of the brightest system in the field, corresponding
861: to the Abell 781 complex, clearly resolving three of its
862: components. Employing Monte Carlo simulations, we show that only
863: the top two cluster candidates in the single-resolution map have
864: a significant probability of being real clusters whereas the
865: realness of the rest of the candidates is not highly probable.
866:
867:
868: Mass reconstruction by this multi-resolution inverse method can be
869: improved in many ways. The redshift information of the background
870: sources can be easily incorporated in the expected ellipticity
871: function. This method is also capable of including other available
872: observational information such as magnification data in the
873: lensing reconstruction. The application of this method to the DLS
874: data set will be the first attempt in breaking the degeneracy in
875: wide field mass reconstruction using both shear and magnification
876: data. Papers presenting the mass function and the biases in the
877: mass reconstruction of this field with a more comprehensive
878: analysis of the confirmed shear selected clusters, as well as the
879: statistical properties of candidate systems are in preparation.
880:
881: \acknowledgments
882:
883: We would like to thank Jeff Kubo for many useful discussions that
884: helped to improve the paper. Further we would like to thank the DLS Collaboration
885: for the reduction and calibration of the DLS data, as well as NOAO for
886: allocating time to the survey. We also thank the referee for his constructive
887: comments. This work was supported by NSF grants
888: AST-0134753 and AST-0708433. IRAF is distributed by the National Optical
889: Astronomy Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities
890: for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National
891: Science Foundation. This research has made use of SAOImage DS9, developed by
892: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. Kitt Peak National Observatory,
893: National Optical Astronomy Observatory, is operated by the Association of
894: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. (AURA) under cooperative
895: agreement with the National Science Foundation.
896:
897: \clearpage
898:
899: \begin{thebibliography}{}
900: \bibitem[Bartelmann et al.(1996)]{Bartelmann_96} Bartelmann, M., Narayan, R., Seitz,
901: S. \& Schneider, P. 1996, \apj, 464, L115
902: \bibitem[Beckwith (2005)]{Beckwith_05} Beckwith, S. 2004, Hubble Ultra Deep
903: Field Catalog, (STScI), http://www.stsci.edu/hst/ud
904: \bibitem[Bernstein \& Jarvis(2002)]{Bernstein_02} Bernstein, G.M. \& Jarvis,
905: M. 2002, \aj, 123,583
906: \bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{Bertin_96} Bertin, E. \& Arnouts, S. 1996,
907: A\&AS, 117, 393
908: \bibitem[Bradac et al.(2005)]{Bradac_05} Bradac, M., Schneider, P., Lombardi, M. \&
909: Erben, T. 2005, A\&A, 437, 39
910: \bibitem[Bridle et al.(1998)]{Bridle_98} Bridle, S.L., Hobson, M.P., Lasenby,
911: A.N. \& Saunders, R. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 895
912: \bibitem[Broadhurst et al.(1995)]{Broadhurst_95} Broadhurst, T.J., Taylor,
913: A. \& Peacock, J. 1995, \apj, 438, 49
914: \bibitem[Fischer \& Tyson(1997)]{Fischer_Tyson_97} Fischer, P. \& Tyson,
915: J.A. 1997, \aj, 114, 14
916: \bibitem[Geller et al.(2005)]{Geller_2005} Geller, M., Dell'Antonio, I.,
917: Kurtz, M., Ramella, M., Fabricant, D., Caldwell, N., Tyson, A. \& Wittman,
918: D. 2005, ApjL, 635, 125
919: \bibitem[Jain et al.(2006)]{Jain_06} Jain, B., Jarvis, M. \& Bernstein,
920: G. 2006, JCAP, 0602, 001
921: \bibitem[Kaiser \& Squires(1993)]{KS93} Kaiser, N. \& Squires, G. 1993, \apj,
922: 404, 441
923: \bibitem[Lombard \& Bertin(1999)]{Lombardi_99} Lombardi M. \& Bertin G. 1999,
924: A\&A, 342, 337
925: \bibitem[Marshall et al.(2002)]{Marshall_02} Marshall, P.J., Hobson, M.P.,
926: Gull, S.F. \& Bridle, S.L. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 1037
927: \bibitem[Miralda-Escud\'{e}(1991)]{Miralda_91} Miralda-Escud\'{e}, J. 1991,
928: \apj, 380, 1
929: \bibitem[Navarro, Frenk \& White(1997)]{NFW_97} Navarro, J.F., Frenk, C.S. \&
930: White, S.D.M. 1997, \apj, 490, 493
931: \bibitem[Parker et al.(2007)]{Parker_07} Parker, L.C., Hoekstra, H., Hudson,
932: M.J., van Waerbeke, L. \& Mellier, Y. 2007, \apj, 669, 21P
933: \bibitem[Press et al.(1992)]{Press_92} Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A.,
934: Vetterling, W.T. \& Flannery, B.P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in C, Cambridge
935: (Cambridge University Press)
936: \bibitem[Schneider \& Seitz(1995)]{Schneider_Seitz_95} Schneider, P. \& Seitz,
937: C. 1995, A\&A, 294, 411
938: \bibitem[Sehgal et al.(2007)]{Sehgal_07} Sehgal, N., Hughes, J., Wittman, D.,
939: Margoniner, V., Tyson, J. A., Gee, P. \& Dell'Antonio, I. 2007 \apj,
940: submitted
941: \bibitem[Seitz et al.(1998)]{Seitz_Schneider_98} Seitz, C., Schneider, P. \&
942: Bartelmann, M. 1998, A\&A, 337, 325
943: \bibitem[Squires \& Kaiser(1996)]{Squires_Kaiser_96} Squires, G. \& Kaiser,
944: N. 1996, 473, 65
945: \bibitem[Tyson(1988)]{Tyson_88} Tyson, J.A 1988, \aj, 98, 1
946: \bibitem[Tyson et al.(1990)]{Tyson_90} Tyson, J.A , Wenk, R.A. \& Valdes,
947: F.V. 1990 ApjL, 349, 1
948: \bibitem[Wall \& Jenkins(2003)]{Wall_03} Wall, J.V. \& Jenkins, C.R. 2003,
949: Practical Statistics for Astronomers, Cambridge (Cambridge University Press)
950: \bibitem[Wittman et al.(2006)]{Wittman_06} Wittman, D., Dell'Antonio, I.P.,
951: Hughes, J.P., Margoniner, V.E., Tyson, J.A., Cohen, J.G. \& Norman, D. 2006,
952: \apj, 643, 128
953: \bibitem[Wittman et al.(2002)]{Wittman_02} Wittman, D., Tyson, J.A. \&
954: Dell'Antonio, I.P. 2002, Proc. SPIE, 4863, 73
955: \bibitem[Wittman et al.(2000)]{Wittman_2000} Wittman, D.M., Tyson, J.A.,
956: Kirkman, D., Dell'Antonio, I.P. \& Bernstein, G. 2000, Nature, 405, 143
957: \bibitem[Wright \& Brainerd(2000)]{Wright_Brainerd_2000} Wright, C.O. \&
958: Brainerd, T.G. 2000, \apj,
959: 534, 34
960: \end{thebibliography}
961:
962:
963:
964: \clearpage
965:
966:
967: \begin{figure}[ht]
968: \begin{center}
969: \plotone{f1.eps}
970: \caption{The resulting $\chi^2_\mathrm{scaled}$
971: vs. $\mathcal{R}_\mathrm{scaled}$ from 9 minimizations with
972: coefficients between $\lambda = 0$ and $\lambda = 10$ in addition to the
973: result from minimizing only $\mathcal{R}$. The intersection between the
974: $\chi^2_\mathrm{scaled}$-$\mathcal{R}_\mathrm{scaled}$ curve and the line
975: $\chi^2_\mathrm{scaled} = \mathcal{R}_\mathrm{scaled}$
976: indicates $\lambda = 0.001$ to be the proper coefficient for the $1'.5$ per
977: pixel reconstruction of the simulated field.}
978: \label{fig:sims_chi2R80}
979: \end{center}
980: \end{figure}
981:
982: \clearpage
983:
984: \begin{figure}[ht]
985: \begin{center}
986: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}
987: \caption{The expectation value of $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$ versus
988: $|\delta|^2$. Solid squares represent the simulations at the DLS pixel-scale
989: with simulated PSF and matched signal to noise, open squares represent the
990: simulations of a UDF like field and solid triangles represent the
991: analytically approximated expectations \citep{Schneider_Seitz_95}.}
992: \label{fig:e1e2_delta2}
993: \end{center}
994: \end{figure}
995:
996:
997: \clearpage
998:
999: \begin{figure}[ht]
1000: \begin{center}
1001: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps}
1002: \plottwo{f3c.eps}{f3d.eps}
1003: \caption{The input surface mass density of the five clusters listed
1004: in Table~\ref{tab:NFWlenses} (top left) and the single-resolution
1005: inverse reconstruction (top right), the direct reconstruction (bottom left)
1006: and the multi-resolution inverse reconstruction (bottom right) of the $1 \deg^2$
1007: simulated field. The resolution in the box around the first
1008: and second clusters in the multi-resolution map is $0'.75$ per
1009: pixel whereas the resolution in the rest of the field is $1'.5$ per
1010: pixel ($\sim$~480 Kpc at $z = 0.4$), which is also the resolution of the
1011: other maps.}
1012: \label{fig:sims_massmaps}
1013: \end{center}
1014: \end{figure}
1015:
1016: \clearpage
1017:
1018: \begin{figure}[ht]
1019: \begin{center}
1020: \plotone{f4.eps}
1021: \caption{The histogram of the number of detected objects $n (\kappa)$
1022: per catalog for a given total surface mass density $\kappa_\mathrm{total}$.
1023: The solid histogram shows $n (\kappa)$ for the Monte Carlo catalogs
1024: base on the simulated field catalog (made by shuffling the ellipticities of
1025: the source galaxies in the simulated field) and the dashed histogram
1026: shows $n (\kappa)$ for the original simulated catalog.}
1027: \label{fig:sims_boot_prob}
1028: \end{center}
1029: \end{figure}
1030:
1031: \clearpage
1032:
1033: \begin{figure}[ht]
1034: \begin{center}
1035: \plotone{f5.eps}
1036: \caption{The {\tt ellipto}-size vs. magnitude diagram of the objects in a
1037: random $0.1 \deg^2$ region of the DLS F2. To clean the data of unsuitable
1038: objects for the weak lensing analysis, stars and any object smaller than
1039: the PSF size, along with the bright end of the locus which contains
1040: saturated objects and bright galaxies are filtered out. We also only keep
1041: the galaxies with successfully measured intensity moments (by {\tt ellipto})
1042: that are brighter than $R=25$, selecting only the objects inside the box
1043: to be consistent with the selection method of \citet{Wittman_06}.}
1044: \label{fig:F2_magsize}
1045: \end{center}
1046: \end{figure}
1047:
1048: \clearpage
1049:
1050: \begin{figure}[ht]
1051: \begin{center}
1052: \plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps}
1053: \caption{The final single-resolution convergence maps of the $4 \deg^2$ DLS
1054: F2, from the inverse (left) and the direct (right) reconstructions, with a
1055: resolution of $1'.5$ per pixel.}
1056: \label{fig:F2_massmaps}
1057: \end{center}
1058: \end{figure}
1059:
1060: \clearpage
1061:
1062: \begin{figure}[ht]
1063: \begin{center}
1064: \plotone{f7.eps}
1065: \caption{The final multi-resolution convergence map of the $4 \deg^2$ DLS
1066: F2. The resolution in the box around the A781 complex is $0'.75$ per pixel
1067: whereas the resolution in the rest of the field is $1'.5$ per pixel.}
1068: \label{fig:F2_massmap160g}
1069: \end{center}
1070: \end{figure}
1071:
1072: \clearpage
1073:
1074: \begin{figure}[ht]
1075: \begin{center}
1076: \plotone{f8.ps}
1077: \caption{The section of the final multi-resolution convergence map of the DLS
1078: F2 (Fig.~\ref{fig:F2_massmap160g}) in the vicinity of the the A781
1079: complex with overlayed intensity contours. The resolution in the box around the A781
1080: complex is $0'.75$ per pixel whereas the resolution in the rest of the field
1081: is $1'.5$ per pixel.}
1082: \label{fig:F2_massmap160g_a781}
1083: \end{center}
1084: \end{figure}
1085:
1086: \clearpage
1087:
1088: \begin{figure}[ht]
1089: \begin{center}
1090: \plottwo{f9a.eps}{f9b.eps}
1091: \caption{The sections of the multi-resolution reconstruction of a random
1092: region (left) and the original single-resolution reconstruction of the same
1093: region (right) of the DLS F2. This region is void of areas with large
1094: signal. The resolution in the box is $0'.75$ per pixel whereas
1095: the resolution in the rest of the field is $1'.5$ per pixel. It is clear
1096: that in the multi-resolution region, it is the noise that has been fitted
1097: for rather than the signal, indicating that a higher global resolution is
1098: not attainable with this source catalog.}
1099: \label{fig:F2_random160g}
1100: \end{center}
1101: \end{figure}
1102:
1103: \clearpage
1104:
1105: \begin{figure}[ht]
1106: \begin{center}
1107: \plotone{f10.eps}
1108: \caption{The histogram of the number of detected objects $n (\kappa)$
1109: per catalog for a given total surface mass density $\kappa_\mathrm{total}$.
1110: The solid histogram shows $n (\kappa)$ for the Monte Carlo catalogs
1111: base on the DLS field catalog (made by shuffling the ellipticities of the
1112: source galaxies in the simulated field) and the dashed histogram shows
1113: $n (\kappa)$ for the original DLS F2 catalog.}
1114: \label{fig:F2_boot_prob}
1115: \end{center}
1116: \end{figure}
1117:
1118: \clearpage
1119:
1120: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
1121: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \tablewidth{0pt} \tablecaption{Simulated NFW
1122: Clusters\label{tab:NFWlenses}}
1123: \tablehead{ \colhead{Cluster} &
1124: \colhead{$x$ (pix)} & \colhead{$y$ (pix)} & \colhead{$r_s$
1125: (Kpc)} & \colhead{$r_{200}$ (Mpc)} & \colhead{Mass ($10^{14} \times$
1126: M$_{\sun}$)}
1127: }
1128: \startdata
1129: 1 & 10000.0 & 10000.0 & 430.13 & 2.151 & 26.1 \\
1130: 2 & 9500.0 & 9500. & 268.83 & 1.075 & 3.3 \\
1131: 3 & 4000.0 & 3500.0 & 322.60 & 1.505 & 9.0 \\
1132: 4 & 5000.0 & 8000.0 & 172.05 & 0.806 & 1.3 \\
1133: 5 & 8250.0 & 5400.0 & 134.42 & 0.645 & 0.7 \\
1134: \enddata
1135: \tablecomments{Properties of the simulated NFW clusters ($z = 0.4$). The
1136: height and width of the field are 1 degree = 14400 pixels.}
1137: \end{deluxetable}
1138:
1139: \clearpage
1140:
1141: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccccc}
1142: \tablecolumns{7} \tablewidth{0pt} \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1143: \tablecaption{Measured
1144: $\kappa_{\mathrm{total}}$ of Simulated
1145: Clusters\label{tab:sim_kappaxy}}
1146: \tablehead{ \colhead{} &
1147: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Analytical Input} & \colhead{} &
1148: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Inverse
1149: Method} & \colhead{}\\
1150: \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6}\\
1151: \colhead{Cluster} & \colhead{Position (pix)} &
1152: \colhead{$\kappa_{\mathrm{total}}$} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Position (pix)}
1153: & \colhead{$\kappa_{\mathrm{total}}$} & \colhead{$P_\mathrm{real}$}}
1154: \startdata
1155: 1, 2 & (26.76, 26.76) & 5.310 & & (26.87, 27.43) & 6.164 $\pm$ 0.360 & 99.97\%\\
1156: 3 & (11.03, 9.70) & 1.510 & & (11.15, 9.66) & 1.640 $\pm$ 0.273 & 99.95\%\\
1157: 4 & (13.76, 21.80) & 0.308 & & (14.00, 22.44) & 0.250 $\pm$ 0.129 & 84.83\%\\
1158: 5 & (22.22, 14.79) & 0.170 & & (23.52, 15.00) & 0.134 $\pm$ 0.096 & 72.62\%\\
1159: \enddata
1160: \tablecomments{The measured total surface mass density of the simulated clusters
1161: from the analytical input and our inverse method, all shown in
1162: Figure~\ref{fig:sims_massmaps}. A mass sheet corresponding to the degeneracy
1163: coefficient of $\alpha \sim 0.88$ (Eqn. \ref{eqn:sheetdegn})
1164: transforms the measured surface mass density to the expected surface mass
1165: within the estimated errors. The error and probability estimates are
1166: derived from Monte Carlo simulations.
1167: The probability of finding objects in randomly selected regions of the Monte
1168: Carlo mass maps with the same or less signal than that of each cluster
1169: determines the probability of detecting such signal solely due to random
1170: orientation of background sources. One minus this probability is a fair
1171: estimate for the probability of detections to be real, $P_\mathrm{real}$.}
1172: \end{deluxetable}
1173:
1174:
1175: \end{document}
1176: