1: \documentclass[prd,twocolumn,showpacs,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{times}

3: \usepackage{natbib}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: 

6: \newcommand{\apjl}{Astrophys. J. Lett.}

7: \newcommand{\apjs}{Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.}

8: \newcommand{\aap}{Astron. Astrophys.}

9: \newcommand{\mnras}{Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.}

10: \newcommand{\araa}{Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.}

11: \newcommand{\physrep}{Phys. Rep.}

12: 

13: \newcommand{\mk}{$\bullet$}

14: \newcommand{\etc}{\noindent \mk}

15: \newcommand{\ang}{\hat\nabla}

16: 

17: \newcommand{\bdv}[1]{{\bf #1}}

18: 

19: \newcommand{\up}[1]{{\rm #1}}

20: \newcommand{\kms}{{\rm km\, s}^{-1}}

21: \newcommand{\mpc}{{\rm Mpc}}

22: \newcommand{\hmpc}{{h^{-1}\mpc}}

23: \newcommand{\msun}{M_{\odot}}

24: \newcommand{\hmsun}{{h^{-1}\msun}}

25: \newcommand{\Rvir}{R_\up{vir}}

26: \newcommand{\OM}{\Omega_m}

27: \newcommand{\OB}{\Omega_b}

28: \newcommand{\rms}{\sigma_8}

29: 

30: \newcommand{\vL}{\bdv{l}}

31: \newcommand{\Vang}{\bdv{\hat n}}

32: \newcommand{\Vangm}{\bdv{\hat m}}

33: \newcommand{\lenT}{\tilde T}

34: \newcommand{\spix}{\sigma_\up{pix}}

35: \newcommand{\Npix}{N_\up{pix}}

36: \newcommand{\fsky}{f_\up{sky}}

37: \newcommand{\Tobs}{\tilde T^\up{obs}}

38: \newcommand{\Tobss}{\tilde T^{\up{obs}*}}

39: \newcommand{\That}{\hat T}

40: \newcommand{\lenC}{\tilde C}

41: \newcommand{\Cobs}{\tilde C^\up{obs}}

42: \newcommand{\sbeam}{\sigma_b}

43: \newcommand{\tfwhm}{\theta_\up{FWHM}}

44: \newcommand{\khat}{\hat\kappa}

45: \newcommand{\Cphi}{C^{\phi\phi}}

46: \newcommand{\Ckap}{C^{\kappa\kappa}}

47: \newcommand{\Cdd}{C^{dd}}

48: \newcommand{\Nkap}{N^{\kappa\kappa}}

49: \newcommand{\tE}{\theta_\up{E}}

50: \newcommand{\tEm}{\theta_\up{E}^m}

51: \newcommand{\tEms}{\theta_\up{E}^{m2}}

52: \newcommand{\tEst}{\theta_\up{E}^\star}

53: \newcommand{\tEhat}{\hat\tE}

54: \newcommand{\tEQE}{\hat\tE^\up{QE}}

55: \newcommand{\tEML}{\hat\tE^\up{ML}}

56: \newcommand{\tEopt}{\hat\tE^\up{opt}}

57: \newcommand{\beeq}{\vspace{10pt}\begin{equation}} 

58: \newcommand{\eneq}{\vspace{10pt}\end{equation}}

59: \newcommand{\bear}{\vspace{10pt}\begin{eqnarray}}

60: \newcommand{\enar}{\end{eqnarray}{\\\\ \noindent}}

61: \newcommand{\Fisher}{\mathcal{F}}

62: \newcommand{\Lik}{\mathcal{L}}

63: \newcommand{\lcut}{l_\up{cut}}

64: \newcommand{\muK}{\mu\up{K}}

65: \newcommand{\Minit}{M_\up{init}}

66: \newcommand{\bhat}{\bdv{\hat s}}

67: \newcommand{\dsmall}{\bdv{\hat\Delta}}

68: 

69: 

70: \begin{document}

71: 

72: \title{Improved estimation of cluster mass profiles 

73: from the cosmic microwave background}

74: 

75: \author{Jaiyul Yoo$^1$}

76: \altaffiliation{Electronic address: jyoo@cfa.harvard.edu} 

77: \author{Matias Zaldarriaga$^{1,2}$}

78: \affiliation{$^1$Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Harvard 

79: University, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}

80: \affiliation{$^2$Jefferson Physical Laboratory, Harvard University, 

81: 17 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}

82: 

83: \begin{abstract}

84: We develop a new method for reconstructing cluster mass profiles and 

85: large-scale structure from the cosmic microwave background (CMB). By analyzing

86: the likelihood of CMB lensing, we analytically prove that standard quadratic

87: estimators for CMB lensing are unbiased and achieve the optimal condition

88: only in the limit of no lensing; they become progressively biased and

89: sub-optimal, when the lensing effect is large, especially for clusters that

90: can be found by ongoing Sunyaev-Zel'dovich surveys. Adopting an alternative

91: approach to the CMB likelihood, we construct a new maximum likelihood 

92: estimator that utilizes delensed CMB temperature fields based on an assumed

93: model. We analytically show that this estimator asymptotically approaches

94: the optimal condition as our assumed model is refined, and we numerically

95: show that as we iteratively apply it to CMB maps

96: our estimator quickly converges to the true model with a factor of ten

97: less number of clusters than standard quadratic estimators need.

98: For realistic CMB experiments, we demonstrate the 

99: applicability of the maximum likelihood estimator with tests against

100: numerical simulations in the presence of CMB secondary contaminants. With 

101: significant improvement on the signal-to-noise ratio, our new maximum 

102: likelihood estimator can be used to measure the cluster-mass 

103: cross-correlation functions at different redshifts, probing the evolution

104: of dark energy. 

105: \end{abstract}

106: 

107: \pacs{98.62.Sb, 98.70.Vc, 98.80.Es}

108: 

109: \maketitle

110: 

111: \section{Introduction}

112: \label{sec:intro}

113: As the most distant observable sources, the cosmic microwave background (CMB)

114: anisotropies provide a unique channel to probe the universe after the 

115: cosmological recombination epoch. In particular, weak gravitational lensing of 

116: the CMB can be used to map the matter distribution in the universe at higher 

117: redshift than weak lensing of faint background galaxies can ever achieve. 

118: Recent work \citep{HIPAET04,SMZADO07,HIHOET08,CASLET08}

119: has focused on measuring the lensing signature in the CMB

120: by large-scale structure between the last scattering surface and the present

121: universe, but relatively little attention has been paid to weak lensing 

122: of the CMB by clusters of galaxies.

123: 

124: The abundance of massive clusters is exponentially sensitive to the growth of 

125: the underlying matter distribution, and hence it has been recognized as a

126: powerful probe of the evolution of dark energy (e.g., \citep{DETF06}).

127: However, the constraining power as a cosmological probe

128: can be only realized, if the cluster masses are accurately measured.

129: To achieve this goal, many cluster surveys are designed to detect massive

130: clusters and measure their mass using the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ)

131: effect, and some of the planned

132: surveys are already operational using the South Pole Telescope (SPT),

133: and the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT).

134: Weak lensing of the CMB can be applied to the same clusters found in the

135: SZ surveys without additional observations,

136: providing independent measurements of their mass. 

137: Furthermore, the CMB provides the highest redshift source plane with precision 

138: measurements of its distance, which can be combined with galaxy weak lensing 

139: measurements of the same lensing clusters to obtain angular diameter 

140: distance ratio estimates that are independent of the mass distribution,

141: substantially increasing the leverage to constrain cosmological

142: parameters \citep{HUHOVA07}.

143: 

144: Gravitational lensing by clusters imprints a unique signature in the CMB 

145: anisotropies. On arcminute scales, the primordial CMB anisotropies decay

146: exponentially due to the photon diffusion from the baryon-photon fluid around

147: the recombination epoch \citep{SILK68},

148: and to a good approximation the CMB can be considered as a pure temperature

149: gradient 

150: on small scales. Based on this approximation, \citet{SEZA95} showed that 

151: clusters create dipole-like wiggles in the CMB temperature by remapping the

152: otherwise smooth gradient field,

153: and this unique feature can be used to isolate the lensing effect

154: by clusters and to reconstruct the deflection angle, once the temperature

155: gradient is separately measured on large scales.

156: \citet*{VAAMWH04} and \citet{HOKO04} used $N$-body simulations 

157: to model realistic lensing clusters, and they found that 

158: the mass reconstruction for individual clusters is compromised,

159: since it is hard to measure the large-scale temperature gradient accurately

160: and secondary anisotropies in the CMB can partially 

161: mimic the lensing signature. 

162: 

163: However, it has been realized that one can apply the same technique developed 

164: for reconstructing large-scale structure to clusters of galaxies, measuring

165: the statistical properties of a sample of clusters.

166: Unlike galaxy weak lensing, CMB anisotropies have no characteristic shape, 

167: even statistically, from which the deviation is a measure of the lensing 

168: effect. Gravitational lensing, however, gives rise to a deviation 

169: of the two-point correlation function of the CMB temperature anisotropies

170: from statistical isotropy. 

171: The standard technique is to construct a lensing estimator that is quadratic in 

172: observed temperature anisotropies, measuring the  

173: correlation between different Fourier modes, which is directly proportional

174: to the lensing effect \citep{HU01b}.

175: 

176: This method is easy to implement in analyzing real data compared to the full

177: likelihood analysis \citep{HISE03a} and no separate measurement is required

178: to obtain the large-scale temperature gradient. However,

179: \citet{MABAMEET05} showed that standard quadratic estimators need a 

180: modification to be an unbiased estimator in a region around massive clusters.

181: \citet*{HUDEVA07} quantitatively demonstrated that

182: standard quadratic estimators based on the linear approximation ignore

183:  higher-order terms in the lensing effect that coherently contribute to

184: the lensing reconstruction, and hence the reconstruction is biased low when 

185: the lensing effect is large. Furthermore, they proposed modified quadratic 

186: estimators that remove the higher-order terms in violation of the linear

187: approximation by low-pass filtering observed temperature fields, and they

188: showed that the modified quadratic estimators recover cluster mass profiles

189: with no significant bias.

190: However, the cutoff scale of the low-pass filter is somewhat arbitrary and

191: it depends on the lensing effect, which we want to measure with the estimators.

192: 

193: Here we develop a new maximum likelihood estimator for reconstructing cluster

194: mass profiles and large-scale structure by analyzing the likelihood of CMB

195: lensing. Our approach is similar in making full use of the likelihood 

196: information to one advocated by \citet{HISE03a}. While they derive an 

197: analytic expression for a maximum likelihood estimator, it is impractical to

198: apply to a realistic problem, because the solution is too general and 

199: computationally expensive. However, our maximum likelihood estimator is 

200: different from theirs and it is easy

201: to use in practice, because we adopt an alternative approach to setting up

202: the likelihood: it takes a similar form of standard quadratic estimators and it 

203: approaches the optimal condition as it is iteratively applied to CMB maps.

204: Furthermore, we show that our maximum likelihood estimator can reconstruct

205: cluster mass profiles with a factor of ten less number of clusters than 

206: standard or modified quadratic estimators need.

207: 

208: The rest of the paper is organized as follows.

209: We first derive a quadratic

210: estimator, accounting for the telescope beam effect

211: in Sec.~\ref{sec:formalism}. This consideration

212: makes a difference compared to the usual practice in the literature,

213: where quadratic estimators are 

214: often applied to beam deconvolved CMB maps.

215: In Sec.~\ref{sec:mle} we analytically show that the

216: quadratic estimators are unbiased and optimal only when the lensing effect 

217: vanishes, and why the modified quadratic estimators outperform the 

218: standard quadratic 

219: estimators when the lensing effect is large. Based on this observation, we 

220: construct a delensed temperature field and derive a maximum likelihood 

221: estimator using the delensed temperature field. 

222: We demonstrate its applicability to realistic CMB experiments using numerical

223: simulations in Sec.~\ref{sec:num}. 

224: We discuss the impact

225: of the telescope beam and instrumental noise in the delensing process

226: and we conclude in Sec.~\ref{sec:con}.

227: 

228: In this paper we will only

229: consider lensing estimators based on CMB temperature

230: anisotropies, since the planned surveys are not yet sensitive to CMB

231: polarization anisotropies on arcminute scales.

232: However, it is straightforward to extend our formalism

233: to lensing estimators based on CMB polarization anisotropies. 

234: Throughout the paper

235: we assume a flat $\Lambda$CDM universe with the matter density 

236: parameter $\OM h^2=0.127$, the baryon density parameter $\OB h^2=0.0222$, the 

237: Hubble constant $h=0.73$, the spectral index $n_s=0.95$, the optical depth to

238: the last scattering surface $\tau=0.09$, and the primordial

239: curvature perturbation amplitude $A_s=2.5\times10^{-9}$ (corresponding to the

240: matter power spectrum normalization $\rms=0.75$), consistent with the recent

241: cosmological parameter estimation (e.g., \citep{TESTET06,SPBEET07,KODUET08})

242: 

243: \section{Formalism}

244: \label{sec:formalism}

245: Here we describe our notations for weak lensing of the

246: CMB and derive a quadratic estimator for CMB lensing reconstruction.

247: 

248: \subsection{Weak Lensing of the CMB}

249: Gravitational lensing deflects light rays as they propagate through

250: fluctuating gravitational fields, and the deflection vector 

251: $\bdv{d}(\Vang)$ at the angular position $\Vang$ on the sky is related to

252: the line-of-sight projection of the gravitational potential $\psi$ as

253: $\bdv{d}(\Vang)=\bdv{\ang}\phi(\Vang)$, where the projected potential is

254: \beeq

255: \phi(\Vang)=-2\int_0^{D_\star}\!\! 

256: dD~{D_\star-D\over D D_\star}~\psi(D\Vang,D),

257: \eneq

258: $\ang$ is the derivative with respect to $\Vang$, 

259: and $D_\star$ is the comoving angular diameter distance to the last scattering

260: surface. Here we have assumed a flat universe and $c\equiv1$. 

261: The projected potential is further

262: related to the convergence $\kappa$ as $\ang^2\phi(\Vang)=-2\kappa(\Vang)$.

263: 

264: 

265: Since gravitational lensing conserves the surface brightness of diffuse 

266: backgrounds, the lensed temperature field $\lenT(\Vang)$ 

267: of the CMB is simply the intrinsic (unlensed)

268: temperature field $T(\Vang)$ remapped by

269: the deflection vector,

270: \beeq

271: \lenT(\Vang)=T\left[\Vang+\ang\phi(\Vang)\right].

272: \label{eq:lensing}

273: \eneq

274: We will use notation with (or without) tilde to represent lensed (or unlensed)

275: quantities.

276: Note that we mainly work in the Rayleigh-Jeans tail and express the surface 

277: brightness in terms of temperature.

278: 

279: In a sufficiently small patch of the sky, it significantly simplifies the

280: manipulations to work in Fourier space

281: \citep[see][for all-sky formalism]{HU00,OKHU03,CHLE05}. In Fourier space

282: the lensed temperature is 

283: \bear

284: \label{eq:lensexp}

285: \lenT_\vL&=&\int d^2\Vang~\lenT(\Vang)~e^{-i\vL\cdot\Vang} \\ 

286: &=&T_\vL-\int{d^2\vL'\over(2\pi)^2}\left[(\vL-\vL')\cdot\vL'\right]T_{\vL'}

287: \phi_{\vL-\vL'}+\cdots, \nonumber

288: \enar

289: where we Taylor expanded $\lenT_\vL$ to the first order in $\phi_\vL$.

290: We kept the same notation for Fourier components, while the functional

291: dependence is indicated as a subscript (e.g., $T(\Vang)$ and $T_\vL$ are

292: Fourier counterparts).

293: The rms deflection angle $\langle\bdv{d}\cdot\bdv{d}\rangle^{1/2}$

294: is a few arcminutes and the deflection power peaks at a few degree scale,

295: comparable to the angular sizes of clusters.

296: However, the large-scale deflection field is coherent over the

297: scales of the temperature fluctuations, resulting in an unobservable overall

298: shift of the temperature field \citep{MAZA06}, and the linear approximation

299: remains valid. In Sec.~\ref{sec:mle} we discuss the limitation of this 

300: approximation when the lensing effect is large in a region around massive

301: clusters.

302: 

303: Since the intrinsic CMB is Gaussian and isotropic,

304: the statistical properties

305: of the temperature field can be completely described by the power spectrum

306: $C_l$,

307: \beeq

308: \langle T_{\vL_1}T^*_{\vL_2}\rangle=(2\pi)^2~\delta(\vL_1-\vL_2)~C_{l_1},

309: \eneq

310: where the asterisk represents complex conjugation and $\delta$ is the

311: Dirac delta function.

312: Analogously, we define the projected potential power spectrum $\Cphi_l$. 

313: Thus the deflection and the convergence

314: power spectra are $\Cdd_l=l^2\Cphi_l$ and $\Ckap_l=l^4\Cphi_l/4$, respectively.

315: Note that $\Cphi_l$ can always be defined in this way, though it may be an

316: incomplete description of the statistical properties of the projected potential

317: when $\phi_\vL$ is non-Gaussian. 

318: Finally, the power spectrum of the lensed temperature field is 

319: \beeq

320: \tilde C_l=\left[1-l^2R\right]C_l+\int{d^2\vL'\over(2\pi)^2}

321: \left[(\vL-\vL')\cdot\vL'\right]^2C_{l-l'}\Cphi_{l'},

322: \eneq

323: where $R\equiv(1/4\pi)\int d\ln l~l^4\Cphi_l$ 

324: is the half of the rms deflection angle \citep{HU00,LECH06}.

325: 

326: In practice, the observed temperature field has two additional contributions:

327: detector noise independent of the signal, and telescope beam

328: convolving the signals from different patches of the sky.

329: We assume that the detector noise is white, so that the noise

330: power spectrum is constant,

331: \beeq

332: C_l^N\equiv\Delta_T^2=\spix^2{4\pi \fsky\over \Npix},

333: \eneq

334: where $\spix$ is the rms error in each pixel of the detector 

335: in units of $\mu$K, 

336: $\fsky$ is the fraction of the survey area on the sky, and $\Npix$ is the

337: total number of detector pixels \citep{KNOX95}.

338: Convolution is simply a multiplication in Fourier space, and the

339: beam factor for a simple Gaussian beam we consider is

340: $B_l=\exp\left[-{1\over2}l^2\sbeam^2\right]$.

341: The beam width $\sbeam$ is related to the full-width half-maximum (FWHM) as

342: $\sbeam=\tfwhm/\sqrt{8\ln2}$.

343: The observed temperature field and its power spectrum are then

344: \bear

345: \label{eq:tobs}

346: \Tobs_\vL&=&\lenT_\vL~e^{-{1\over2}l^2\sbeam^2}+T^N_\vL,\\

347: \Cobs_l&=&\tilde C_l~e^{-l^2\sbeam^2}+C^N_l.

348: \enar

349: In reality, one needs to consider other contributions to $\Tobs$, such as

350: residual foregrounds, point radio sources, and 

351: CMB secondary anisotropies. We will

352: only consider secondary contributions in Sec.~\ref{ssec:sz}.

353: 

354: \subsection{Quadratic Estimator}

355: \label{ssec:qe}

356: Here we consider a convergence estimator $\khat(\Vang)$ that is quadratic

357: in the observed temperature field, accounting for  telescope beam and

358: detector noise.\footnote{We will use quantities with hat to represent

359: estimators of the quantities without hat, e.g., a convergence estimator

360: is denoted as $\khat$ and a true convergence field is denoted as $\kappa$.

361: However, this notational convention should not be confused with that

362: used for temperature fields: $T$, $\lenT$, $\Tobs$, and $\That$ represent

363: the intrinsic (unlensed), the lensed [Eq.~(\ref{eq:lensing})], the

364: observed [Eq.~(\ref{eq:tobs})], and the delensed [Eq.~(\ref{eq:delensT})]

365: temperature fields, respectively.}

366: We require that the estimator be unbiased when averaged

367: over an ensemble of CMB maps, $\langle\khat(\Vang)\rangle=\kappa(\Vang)$.

368: With these conditions, the estimator takes the general form in Fourier space

369: \beeq

370: \khat_\bdv{L}={N_L\over2}\int{d^2\vL_1\over(2\pi)^2}~F(\vL_1,\vL_2)~

371: \Tobs_{\vL_1}~\Tobs_{\vL_2},

372: \label{eq:khat}

373: \eneq

374: where $\vL_2=\bdv{L-l}_1$ and $N_L$ is a normalization coefficient, which

375: only depends on $L=|\bdv{L}|$.

376: The functional form of $F(\vL_1,\vL_2)$ can be obtained by minimizing the

377: variance of $\khat_\bdv{L}$ and imposing the normalization condition 

378: \beeq

379: F(\vL_1,\vL_2)={\left[\bdv{L}\cdot\vL_1C_{l_1}+

380: \bdv{L}\cdot\vL_2C_{l_2}\right]\over2~\Cobs_{l_1}\Cobs_{l_2}}~

381: e^{-{1\over2}l_1^2\sbeam^2}~e^{-{1\over2}l_2^2\sbeam^2},

382: \label{eq:fctform}

383: \eneq

384: and the normalization coefficient is

385: \beeq

386: {1\over N_L}={1\over L^2}\int{d^2\vL_1\over(2\pi)^2}

387: {\left[\bdv{L}\cdot\vL_1C_{l_1}+\bdv{L}\cdot\vL_2C_{l_2}\right]^2

388: \over2~\Cobs_{l_1}\Cobs_{l_2}}~e^{-l_1^2\sbeam^2}~e^{-l_2^2\sbeam^2}.

389: \eneq

390: Finally, the variance of the estimator is

391: \beeq

392: \langle\khat_\bdv{L}\khat^*_\bdv{L'}\rangle=(2\pi)^2~\delta(\bdv{L-L'})

393: (\Ckap_L+\Nkap_L),

394: \eneq

395: where $\Nkap_L=L^2N_L/4$ is the noise power spectrum of $\khat_\bdv{L}$.

396: One can think of 

397: $\Ckap_L/N_L^{\kappa\kappa}$ as a signal-to-noise ratio, and the reconstruction

398: becomes difficult at the angular scale $L$, where

399: $\Ckap_L\simeq N_L^{\kappa\kappa}$.

400: Given experimental specifications, the noise power spectrum 

401: $\Nkap_L$, as a function of the intrinsic CMB power spectrum $C_L$,

402: becomes smallest, when there exists substantial power in

403: $C_L$ at the scale of interest,

404: with its shape deviating from the scale-invariance ($L^2C_L=$constant)

405: \citep{ZAZA06}.

406: 

407: Our estimator recovers the general form of the standard quadratic estimators

408: as $\sbeam\rightarrow0$, and

409: $N_L$ corresponds to the noise power spectrum of a deflection

410: estimator $\hat\bdv{d}_\bdv{L}=2\bdv{L}~\khat_\bdv{L}/L^2$ 

411: used in the literature

412: \citep{HU01b}.

413: 

414: The estimator can be decomposed as two Wiener-filtered temperature functions

415: in real space, which essentially correlates the gradient of the lensed

416: temperature field with the unlensed temperature field to isolate the lensing

417: effect,

418: \bear

419: \label{eq:G}

420: \bdv{G}(\Vang)&=&\int{d^2\vL\over(2\pi)^2}~i\vL~\Tobs_\vL{C_l\over\Cobs_l}~

421: e^{-{1\over2}l^2\sbeam^2+i\vL\cdot\Vang} \\

422: \label{eq:W}

423: W(\Vang)&=&\int{d^2\vL\over(2\pi)^2}~\Tobs_\vL{1\over\Cobs_l}~

424: e^{-{1\over2}l^2\sbeam^2+i\vL\cdot\Vang},

425: \enar

426: and the convergence estimator can be expressed in terms of 

427: $\bdv{G}(\Vang)$ and $W(\Vang)$ as

428: \beeq

429: \khat_\bdv{L}=-{N_L\over2}i\bdv{L}\cdot\int d^2\Vang~\bdv{G}(\Vang)W(\Vang)

430: ~e^{-i\bdv{L}\cdot\Vang}.

431: \label{eq:GW}

432: \eneq

433: This approach of using the two Wiener-filtered functions is more convenient 

434: for computing $\khat_\bdv{L}$ by using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) routines 

435: than by directly computing Eq.~(\ref{eq:khat}). Furthermore, it is more 

436: physically intuitive than the general derivation, though the latter has clear

437: advantage in its transparency and understanding

438: the uniqueness of the functional form $F(\vL_1,\vL_2)$.

439: A modified quadratic estimator can be constructed by removing the signals

440: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:G}) at $l\geq\lcut$, while Eq.~(\ref{eq:W}) remains unchanged.

441: 

442: \begin{figure}

443: \centerline{\psfig{file=f1.eps, width=3.0in}}

444: \caption{Convolution filter $H(\theta)$ as a function of separation 

445: $\theta=|\Vang|$ for CMB experiments

446: with $\spix=5\muK$ and~$10\muK$ in Sec.~\ref{sec:num}.

447: The insets show details of $H(\theta)$ at the center ($left$)

448: and its tail ($right$).}

449: \label{fig:filter}

450: \end{figure}

451: 

452: To better understand how quadratic estimators operate, we Fourier transform and

453: rearrange Eq.~(\ref{eq:GW}) as

454: \bear

455: \label{eq:div}

456: {1\over2}\ang\cdot\left[\bdv{G}(\Vang)W(\Vang)\right]&=&

457: \int{d^2\bdv{L}\over(2\pi)^2}{-\khat_\bdv{L}\over N_L}~

458: e^{i\bdv{L}\cdot\Vang} \\

459: &=&\int d^2\Vangm~H(\Vangm-\Vang)\khat(\Vangm). \nonumber

460: \enar

461: The divergence of the two Wiener-Filtered functions is a convolution of the

462: convergence estimate $\khat(\Vang)$ and the filter

463: \beeq

464: H(\Vang)=\int{d^2\bdv{L}\over(2\pi)^2}~{-1\over N_L}~e^{i\bdv{L}\cdot\Vang}.

465: \label{eq:filterH}

466: \eneq

467: Figure~\ref{fig:filter} plots the filter $H(\theta)$ as a function of

468: separation $\theta=|\Vang|$ for experiments with $\spix=5\muK$ and~$10\muK$,

469: to which we apply quadratic estimators in Sec.~\ref{sec:num}. The filter

470: peaks at the center and its width is $\simeq3'$, roughly set by the scale 

471: that the intrinsic CMB and detector noise power spectra become comparable.

472: While the filter is highly oscillating at its tail, it is negligible

473: at $\theta\geq10'$ due to the large weight near the center.

474: A factor of two change in $\spix$ has little impact on the width of the 

475: filter, because the crossing scale is already at the CMB damping tail.

476: 

477: \section{Maximum Likelihood Estimator}

478: \label{sec:mle}

479: In this section, we analyze the likelihood of CMB lensing by singular

480: isothermal clusters. We first derive a quadratic estimator for singular 

481: isothermal clusters and compare the estimator to the optimal estimator

482: from the likelihood. With the simple singular isothermal model, 

483: our analysis will

484: be carried out analytically, showing that

485: (1)~the standard quadratic estimators are

486: unbiased and optimal in the limit of no lensing, (2)~they progressively become

487: biased and sub-optimal when the lensing effect increases, 

488: and (3)~why the modified quadratic

489: estimators perform better than the standard quadratic estimators. Finally, we

490: develop a unbiased maximum likelihood estimator to reconstruct 

491: cluster mass profiles as well as large-scale structure.

492: We demonstrate its applicability to CMB experiments with tests

493: against numerical simulations using more realistic cluster models

494: in Sec.~\ref{sec:num}.

495: 

496: \subsection{Quadratic Estimator for a Singular Isothermal Cluster}

497: A singular isothermal cluster has a density profile $\rho(r)\propto r^{-2}$

498: and its enclosed mass increases with $r$, which requires truncation at some

499: radius to be a viable model for real clusters. However, this

500: model has advantage in its simplicity: its 

501: properties are described by one parameter, Einstein radius

502: 

503: \beeq

504: \tE=4\pi\sigma^2~{D_\star-D_L\over D_\star},

505: \eneq

506: where $\sigma$ is one-dimensional velocity dispersion of a cluster

507: and $D_L$ is

508: the comoving angular diameter distance to the lensing cluster. CMB

509: lensing has a well-defined single plane of the source redshift and

510: the comoving angular diameter distance to the last scattering surface 

511: $D_\star=14.12$~Gpc is now measured with less than 1\% uncertainty 

512: \citep{KODUET08}.

513: The convergence is $\kappa(\Vang)=\tE/2\theta$ and the deflection 

514: vector is $\bdv{d}(\Vang)=-\tE\Vang$ given the angular separation 

515: $\theta=|\Vang|$ from the origin

516: in a cluster centric coordinate. When a virial radius $\Rvir$

517: is defined as the radius inside which the mean density is 200 times the 

518: cosmic mean matter density,

519: a singular isothermal cluster of mass $M=10^{14}\hmsun$ 

520: within the virial

521: radius at $z_L=1$ has an Einstein radius $\tE=8.\!\!''0$ and a velocity

522: dispersion $\sigma=2.0\times10^{-3}(=610~\kms)$, 

523: and they scale as $\tE\propto M^{2/3}$ and $\sigma\propto M^{1/3}$.

524: 

525: A quadratic estimator $\tEQE$

526: for singular isothermal clusters can be readily derived

527: using the method described in Sec.~\ref{ssec:qe}, but here we take an idealized

528: approach for the purpose of comparison, where we assume $\spix=\sbeam=0$.

529: Under the condition

530: that the estimator is unbiased $\langle\tEQE\rangle=\tE$ and it has the

531: minimum variance, the quadratic estimator is

532: \bear

533: \label{eq:teqe}

534: \tEQE&=&{1\over\Fisher}\int{d^2\vL_1\over(2\pi)^2}\int{d^2\vL_2\over(2\pi)^2}

535: \\

536: &\times&{\lenT_{\vL_1}\lenT_{\vL_2}\over \lenC_{l_1}\lenC_{l_2}}

537: {\pi(\vL_1C_{l_1}+\vL_2C_{l_2})\cdot(\vL_1+\vL_2)\over|\vL_1+\vL_2|^3},

538: \nonumber

539: \enar

540: with the normalization coefficient 

541: \bear

542: \label{eq:fisher}

543: \Fisher&=&\int{d^2\vL_1\over(2\pi)^2}\int{d^2\vL_2\over(2\pi)^2}\\

544: &\times&{2\pi^2\over \lenC_{l_1}\lenC_{l_2}} 

545: \left[{(\vL_1C_{l_1}+\vL_2C_{l_2})\cdot(\vL_1+\vL_2)

546: \over|\vL_1+\vL_2|^3}\right]^2. \nonumber

547: \enar

548: The variance of the estimator is 

549: $\langle(\tEQE-\tE)(\tEQE-\tE)\rangle=1/\Fisher$.

550: Here we Taylor expanded $\lenT_\vL$ and kept terms only to the first order

551: in $\tE$ in deriving $\tEQE$.

552: 

553: \subsection{Relation to the Optimal Estimator}

554: \label{ssec:optimal}

555: The likelihood function $P(\lenT|\tEm)$ simply represents the probability that

556: a singular isothermal model 

557: with $\tEm$ can have the lensed temperature field $\lenT(\Vang)$. Since the

558: intrinsic CMB follows a Gaussian distribution and gravitational lensing only

559: remaps the intrinsic CMB, the distribution of $\lenT(\Vang)$ is also

560: Gaussian and its statistical properties are fully described by the covariance

561: matrix of $\lenT(\Vang)$

562: \beeq

563: \lenC(\Vang,\Vang')=\langle\lenT(\Vang)\lenT(\Vang')\rangle

564: =\int{d^2\vL\over(2\pi)^2}~\lenC_l ~e^{i\vL\cdot(\Vang-\Vang')}.

565: \eneq

566: For convenience, we take a negative logarithm of $P(\lenT|\tEm)$ and call it

567: likelihood,

568: \bear

569: \label{eq:likeli}

570: \Lik(\lenT|\tEm)&\equiv&-\ln P(\lenT|\tEm) \\

571: &=&{1\over2}\lenT(\Vang)~\lenC^{-1}(\Vang,\Vang'|\tEm)~\lenT(\Vang')+

572: {1\over2}\ln\det\lenC(\tEm), \nonumber

573: \enar

574: where the summation over $\Vang$ and $\Vang'$ is implicitly assumed and 

575: hereafter we will suppress the angular dependence for simplicity.

576: In general, the likelihood is a functional with its argument of a scalar field,

577: such as $\kappa(\Vang)$ or $\phi(\Vang)$. However, in our case

578: it reduces to a function 

579: with its argument of a scalar $\tEm$, substantially simplifying

580: the manipulation.

581: 

582: We take a derivative of $\Lik$ with respect to $\tEm$,

583: \bear

584: \label{eq:first}

585: {\partial\Lik\over\partial\tEm}&=&-{1\over2}\lenT~\lenC^{-1}~

586: {\partial\lenC\over\partial\tEm}~\lenC^{-1}~\lenT \\

587: &=&-\int\!\!\!{d^2\vL_1\over(2\pi)^2}\int\!\!\!{d^2\vL_2\over(2\pi)^2}

588: {\lenT_{\vL_1}\lenT_{\vL_2}\over\lenC_{l_1}\lenC_{l_2}}

589: {\pi(\vL_1C_{l_1}+\vL_2C_{l_2})\cdot(\vL_1+\vL_2)\over|\vL_1+\vL_2|^3}, \nonumber

590: \enar

591: where we computed the derivative to the first order in $\tEm$.

592: Since gravitational lensing only redistributes the intrinsic CMB,

593: the last term (log determinant) in Eq.~(\ref{eq:likeli}) is 

594: independent of $\tEm$ and

595: hence the derivative with respect to $\tEm$ vanishes in Eq.~(\ref{eq:first}).

596: However, in the presence of non-white instrumental noise, 

597: and/or other secondary

598: contaminants, the derivative acquires a nonzero value but it is in general 

599: negligible compared to the quadratic term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:first}). We will

600: neglect this effect in the remainder of this paper.

601: In the presence of significant contaminants

602: from secondaries, the assumption that the likelihood function is Gaussian

603: becomes invalid before the log determinant term becomes non-negligible.

604: 

605: With the derivative of $\Lik$, we can compute the Fisher information matrix

606: \beeq

607: \label{eq:fisher2}

608: \Fisher=\left\langle{\partial^2\Lik\over\partial\tEms}\right\rangle

609: =\left\langle{\partial\Lik\over\partial\tEm}{\partial\Lik\over\partial\tEm}

610: \right\rangle 

611: \eneq

612: where for the second equality we used the normalization condition of the

613: likelihood function

614: $1=\int d\lenT~ P(\lenT|\tEm)=\int d\lenT~ e^{-\Lik}$. Within the Gaussian

615: approximation, $\Fisher$ can be evaluated at any value of $\tEm$.

616: Note that $\Fisher$ is identical to the normalization coefficient in 

617: Eq.~(\ref{eq:fisher}). 

618: 

619: In statistical parameter estimation, there exists a powerful theorem, known

620: as the Cram\'er-Rao inequality that error bars in a parameter estimation

621: have a definite lower bound  $\sigma(\tEm)\geq\Fisher^{-1/2}$

622: set by the Fisher matrix.

623: Moreover, this theorem provides a necessary and sufficient condition for an

624: estimator to saturate the Cram\'er-Rao inequality, i.e., to be an optimal 

625: estimator $\tEopt$ \citep{BABIC05},

626: \beeq

627: {\partial\Lik\over\partial\tEm}=\Fisher~(\tEm-\tEopt).

628: \label{eq:optimality}

629: \eneq

630: Now it is apparent that only in the limit of no lensing 

631: (the true Einstein radius $\tE=\tEm=0$) does the

632: quadratic estimator $\tEQE$ become an optimal estimator $\tEopt$ with the

633: smallest variance attainable from the data. Conversely, $\tEQE$ becomes

634: progressively biased and sub-optimal as the lensing effect increases.

635: This can be also understood by the validity of the linear approximation:

636: since the quadratic estimator is constructed to be unbiased and to minimize

637: the variance when $\lenT_\vL$ is expanded to the linear order in $\phi_\vL$, 

638: it is natural to expect that this condition breaks down when higher-order terms

639: in $\phi_\vL$ become dominant over the linear order term. The modified 

640: quadratic estimator, on the other hand, removes the angular modes of the

641: signals at $l\geq\lcut$ by explicitly setting the integrand zero

642: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:teqe}), where the linear approximation breaks down, and this 

643: process helps suppress the contributions from the higher-order terms 

644: in $\phi_\vL$

645: because the higher-order terms are related to multiple integrals over the modes

646: that are suppressed most. Precisely for this reason could the modified

647: quadratic estimators be more robust than the standard quadratic estimators

648: even when the lensing effect is large.

649: 

650: However, the modified quadratic estimator requires a rather arbitrary choice 

651: of the cutoff scale $\lcut$, which depends on the lensing effect,

652: though it may be possible to calibrate against simulations \citep{HUDEVA07}. 

653: Furthermore, the removal of the lensing signals at $l\geq\lcut$ inevitably

654: results in lower signal-to-noise ratio, making the reconstruction noisier.

655: We discuss this issue with numerical simulations in Sec.~\ref{ssec:com}.

656: 

657: 

658: \subsection{Maximum Likelihood Estimator}

659: Given the Gaussian probability distribution of the CMB, 

660: the likelihood retains all the information of the observed data.

661: Even when there exists no optimal estimator, one can always find an estimator,

662: if not analytically, that maximizes the likelihood:

663: the maximum likelihood estimator $\tEML$ is the solution of

664: \beeq

665: {\partial\Lik\over\partial\tEm}\Bigg|_{\tEm=\tEML}=0.

666: \label{eq:mle}

667: \eneq

668: However, this equation is highly non-linear in general and requires 

669: approximations to be solved even numerically. 

670: Equations~(\ref{eq:optimality}) and~(\ref{eq:mle}) show that an optimal 

671: estimator is always the maximum likelihood estimator. However, note that

672: while the converse is not true in general, the 

673: maximum likelihood estimator asymptotically 

674: approaches to the optimal condition. 

675: 

676: Having understood that the quadratic estimator becomes an optimal (and maximum

677: likelihood) estimator in the limit of no lensing in Sec.~\ref{ssec:optimal},

678: we present an alternative approach to modeling the likelihood and derive a

679: new maximum likelihood estimator for singular isothermal clusters. We then 

680: generalize this approach to clusters with arbitrary mass distributions.

681: 

682: Consider a model with $\tEm$ and its deflection field 

683: $\bdv{d}^m(\Vang)=-\tEm\Vang$.

684: We construct a delensed

685: temperature field $\That(\Vang)$ by delensing the observed

686: $\lenT(\Vang)$ with $\bdv{d}^m(\Vang)$, and $\That(\Vang)$ is related to

687: the intrinsic temperature field $T(\Vang)$ as

688: \bear

689: \label{eq:delensT}

690: \That(\Vang)&\equiv&\lenT(\Vang-\bdv{d}^m) \\

691: &=&T(\Vang-\bdv{d}^m+\bdv{d})=T\left[(1+\Delta)\Vang\right], \nonumber

692: \enar

693: with $\Delta=\tEm-\tE$. Now we can write the likelihood in terms of the 

694: delensed temperature field $\That(\Vang)$

695: \beeq

696: \Lik(\That|\tEm)={1\over2}\That(\tEm)~C^{-1}~\That(\tEm)+{1\over2}\ln\det C,

697: \eneq

698: where we emphasized the dependence of $\That(\Vang)$ on $\tEm$,

699: and $C$ is the covariance matrix of $T(\Vang)$.

700: Taking a derivative of $\Lik$ with respect to $\tEm$ gives

701: \bear

702: {\partial\Lik\over\partial\tEm}&=&{1\over2}\left[{\partial\That\over\partial

703: \tEm}C^{-1}~\That+\That~ C^{-1}{\partial\That\over\partial\tEm}\right] \\

704: &=&-\int\!\!\!{d^2\vL_1\over(2\pi)^2}\int\!\!\!{d^2\vL_2\over(2\pi)^2}

705: {T_{\vL_1}T_{\vL_2}\over C_{l_1}C_{l_2}}

706: {\pi(\vL_1C_{l_1}+\vL_2C_{l_2})\cdot(\vL_1+\vL_2)\over|\vL_1+\vL_2|^3}. 

707: \nonumber

708: \enar

709: The second equality is obtained by evaluating the derivative at $\Delta=0$.

710: Assuming that our initial

711: model with $\tEst$ is a good approximation to the true model with $\tE$

712: ($\Delta_\star=\tEst-\tE\simeq0$), the 

713: likelihood can be expanded around $\Delta_\star$

714: \bear

715: \Lik&=&\Lik_\star+\left({\partial\Lik\over\partial\tEm}\right)_\star

716: (\Delta-\Delta_\star) \\

717: &+&{1\over2}\left({\partial^2\Lik\over\partial\tEms}

718: \right)_\star(\Delta-\Delta_\star)^2+{\mathcal O}(\Delta^3),\nonumber

719: \enar

720: and we can use the standard Newton-Raphson method to solve Eq.~(\ref{eq:mle})

721: and obtain a maximum likelihood estimator $\tEML$,

722: \bear

723: \label{eq:iterD}

724: \Delta(\tEML)-\Delta_\star&=&\tEML-\tEst \\

725: &=&-\left({\partial\Lik\over\partial\tEm}\right)_\star\bigg/

726: \left({\partial^2\Lik\over\partial^2\tEms}\right)_\star.\nonumber

727: \enar

728: It is important to note that the validity of our solution for $\tEML$

729: is independent of the linear approximation, but

730: the convergence of $\tEML$ depends on the goodness of $\tEst$ 

731: to $\tE$. Eq.~(\ref{eq:iterD}) still involves computationally

732: intensive evaluations of the second derivative, or the curvature matrix.

733: We further simplify $\tEML$ by replacing the curvature matrix with its 

734: ensemble average, Fisher matrix

735: \bear

736: \hat\Fisher&=&\int{d^2\vL_1\over(2\pi)^2}\int{d^2\vL_2\over(2\pi)^2} \\

737: &\times&{2\pi^2\over C_{l_1}C_{l_2}}

738: \left[{(\vL_1C_{l_1}+\vL_2C_{l_2})\cdot(\vL_1+\vL_2)

739: \over|\vL_1+\vL_2|^3}\right]^2, \nonumber

740: \enar

741: and by evaluating the derivatives at $\Delta_\star=0$.

742: Finally, our new maximum likelihood estimator is

743: \bear

744: \label{eq:iter}

745: \tEML&=&\tEst+{1\over\hat\Fisher}\int{d^2\vL_1\over(2\pi)^2}

746: \int{d^2\vL_2\over(2\pi)^2} \\

747: &\times&

748: {\That_{\vL_1}\That_{\vL_2}\over C_{l_1}C_{l_2}}

749: {\pi(\vL_1C_{l_1}+\vL_2C_{l_2})\cdot(\vL_1+\vL_2)\over|\vL_1+\vL_2|^3}. \nonumber

750: \enar

751: This equation is readily recognizable as the standard quadratic estimator

752: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:teqe}), except $\lenC_l$ and $\lenT_\vL$ replaced with $C_l$ and

753: $\That_\vL$. The resemblance should not be surprising, and in hindsight one

754: could have expected this outcome

755: given the result in Sec.~\ref{ssec:optimal}: the quadratic

756: estimator becomes optimal when the lensing effect is vanishingly small; 

757: as we delens $\lenT(\Vang)$ well enough that $\That(\Vang)$ is close to 

758: $T(\Vang)$, the residual lensing effect in $\That(\Vang)$ is substantially 

759: reduced and therefore the maximum likelihood estimator takes

760: the form of the quadratic estimator, returning diminishing change of the

761: second term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:iter}), i.e., 

762: $\tEML\simeq\tEst\simeq\tE$.

763: 

764: We want to emphasize that this new estimator in the form of quadratic 

765: estimators is derived by iteratively solving for the maximum likelihood

766: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:mle}) and updating the initial model $\tEst$ as in the

767: standard Newton-Raphson method,

768: i.e., it is a maximum likelihood estimator and is

769: independent of the linear approximation, to which the validity of the standard

770: quadratic estimator is limited. One may be concerned about replacing the

771: curvature matrix with the Fisher matrix in Eq.~(\ref{eq:iter}) and obtaining

772: a solution quadratic in $\That_\vL$ instead of a solution rational in 

773: $\That_\vL$ (quadratic in $\That_\vL$ both in numerator and in denominator).

774: However, both procedures guarantee that the correct solution of 

775: Eq.~(\ref{eq:mle}) is iteratively found reaching the same peak of the 

776: likelihood, while the error estimation of parameters is approximated by using

777: the Fisher matrix, rather than the full curvature matrix. In Sec.~\ref{sec:num}

778: we demonstrate that this is a good approximation and the initial

779: model converges quickly to the true model.

780: Given the nomenclature of the existing quadratic estimators, now let us call

781: our new maximum likelihood estimator an improved quadratic 

782: estimator.\footnote{However, note 

783: that since our new estimator takes the result

784: of the previous iteration as an initial model, another iteration makes use 

785: of $\That(\Vang)$ that is constructed by using the initial model and this

786: initial model is also a function of $\That(\Vang)$ in the previous iteration,

787: which makes the estimator a rational function of temperature, instead of a

788: quadratic function. Therefore,  it is technically incorrect to call it 

789: a quadratic estimator.}

790: 

791: In practice we can use the standard quadratic

792: estimators to obtain an initial model and 

793: then proceed with our improved quadratic

794: estimator to refine the solution, even when the lensing effect is large. 

795: In general, the reconstruction of cluster mass profiles

796: is too noisy to provide a good initial model.

797: However, we can adopt an initial model for clusters from other 

798: observations (e.g., galaxy weak lensing and X-ray measurement) or theoretical 

799: expectations (e.g., Navarro-Frenk-White (NFW) profiles \citep{NFW97}). As 

800: opposed to the modified quadratic estimators, there is no arbitrary choice of

801: $\lcut$ in our method. 

802: 

803: The toy model developed here can be readily generalized and our

804: improved quadratic estimator can be used to reconstruct mass profiles of

805: realistic clusters and large-scale structure. However, in the presence of

806: the telescope beam and detector noise, the delensing process becomes 

807: non-optimal because it does not commute with the beam smoothing. In the

808: absence of detector noise, one can deconvolve the beam factor, delens the

809: temperature field, and convolve the beam again, which can solve the problem

810: of non-commutativity. 

811: 

812: However, in the presence of detector noise, the beam

813: deconvolved noise can produce unwanted power on all scales when it is

814: delensed due to the non-white power below the beam scale. One can in principle

815: filter out or remove these small scales before delensing to mitigate the 

816: problem \citep{HUDEVA07}, 

817: which however introduces additional ad hoc scale to the problem.

818: The impact of telescope beam and detector noise is small in practice

819: for surveys like SPT ($\Delta_T\simeq6\muK$-arcmin) and ACT 

820: ($\Delta_T\simeq10\muK$-arcmin)

821: as we numerically demonstrate in 

822: Sec.~\ref{sec:num}. We explicitly show in Appendix~\ref{app:delens}

823: that the delensing process suppresses the beam effect by a factor of the

824: average magnification by clusters,

825: since it corresponds to a mapping from the image plane to the source plane.

826: Non-white instrumental noise and boundary effect of

827: detectors may affect the delensing process. However, compared to the survey

828: area, the lensing signals are limited to a relatively small region 

829: around clusters where none of those effect is expected to be significant.

830: 

831: 

832: \section{Reconstructing Cluster Mass Profiles}

833: \label{sec:num}

834: Here we use numerical simulations of the CMB and cluster lensing potential to 

835: demonstrate the applicability of our improved quadratic estimator to 

836: CMB experiments. First, we adopt a more realistic model for massive 

837: clusters and investigate the dependence of our improved

838: quadratic estimator on assumed initial models in Sec.~\ref{ssec:iQE}. Then we 

839: reconstruct cluster mass profiles using the standard, modified, and

840: improved quadratic estimators, and we compare their performance 

841: in Sec.~\ref{ssec:com}.

842: Finally, we discuss the effects of contaminants and investigate the robustness

843: of our improved quadratic estimators in the presence of the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich

844: (SZ) effects. 

845: 

846: 

847: \begin{figure}

848: \centerline{\psfig{file=f2.eps, width=3.0in}}

849: \caption{(color online)

850: Reconstructed convergence fields of a $30'\times30'$ region around

851: a cluster at $z_L=1$ from an ideal experiment with $\Delta_T=0$. 

852: Cluster mass is set $M=5\times10^{14}\hmsun$.

853: Improved quadratic estimators are applied once with initial mass models of 

854: $\Minit=5\times10^{14}\hmsun$ ({\it left})

855: and $\Minit=1\times10^{14}\hmsun$ ({\it right}) to a single patch of sky. 

856: The bottom

857: panels show the residual after the true cluster convergence field is 

858: subtracted from the top panels.}

859: \label{fig:residual}

860: \end{figure}

861: 

862: 

863: 

864: \subsection{Improved Quadratic Estimator}

865: \label{ssec:iQE}

866: A singular isothermal model used in Sec.~\ref{sec:mle} is useful in developing

867: an analytic solution of the likelihood approach. However, it is rather an

868: academic model than a realistic model for massive clusters.

869: Recent numerical simulations show that there exist a universal mass profile

870: for dark matter halos, NFW profiles \citep{NFW97}

871: \beeq

872: \rho(r)={\rho_s\over r/r_s(1+r/r_s)^2}.

873: \eneq

874: The scale radius $r_s$ is described by the concentration parameter 

875: $c=\Rvir/r_s$ and the normalization coefficient $\rho_s$ 

876: is related to the mass of clusters $M=4\pi r_s^3\rho_s[\ln(1+c)-c/(1+c)]$. 

877: We now use NFW profiles to model massive clusters.

878: 

879: The convergence field $\kappa(\Vang)$

880: of NFW profiles can be obtained by the ratio of 

881: the projected mass density $\Sigma(r)$ to the critical surface density 

882: $\Sigma_\up{crit}$ of the lensing cluster at $z_L$,

883: \beeq

884: \kappa\left(\theta={r\over D_L}\right)={\Sigma(r)\over\Sigma_\up{crit}}=

885: {2~r_s\rho_s\over\Sigma_\up{crit}}

886: P\left({r\over r_s}\right)(1+z_L)^2,

887: \label{eq:kappa}

888: \eneq

889: where the functional form $P(x)$ of the projected density is 

890: \citep{BARTE96,WRBR00}

891: \bear

892: P(x)&=&{1\over x^2-1}\left[1-{2\over\sqrt{1-x^2}}~\up{tanh}^{-1}

893: \sqrt{1-x\over1+x}\right],~~~(x<1) \nonumber \\

894: &=&{1\over3},~~~(x=1)\\

895: &=&{1\over x^2-1}\left[1-{2\over\sqrt{x^2-1}}~\up{tan}^{-1}\sqrt{x-1\over x+1}

896: \right],~~~(x>1)\nonumber

897: \enar

898: and the critical surface density 

899: $\Sigma_\up{crit}^{-1}=4\pi G D_L(D_\star-D_L)/D_\star(1+z_L)$ is only a 

900: function

901: of $z_L$ given the precise measurement of $D_\star$. Note that the convergence

902: field $\kappa$ of NFW profiles depend only on the angular separation

903: $\theta=|\Vang|$ due to spherical symmetry.

904: The redshift dependence in Eq.~(\ref{eq:kappa})

905: arises due to our use of comoving coordinates, reflecting higher densities 

906: of the universe at $z_L>0$. For reference, $D_L=850\hmpc$ and $2400\hmpc$, and

907: $\Sigma_\up{crit}=2.8\times10^3hM_\odot\up{pc}^{-2}$ 

908: and $1.8\times10^3hM_\odot\up{pc}^{-2}$ for

909: $z_L=0.3$ and~1, respectively. For clusters of $M=5\times10^{14}\hmsun$ and 

910: $1\times10^{14}\hmsun$, $\Rvir=2.1\hmpc$ and $1.2\hmpc$ appear subtended by

911: $3.\!'0$ and $4.\!'9$ on the sky at $z_L=1$ and 0.3.

912: 

913: We use {\scriptsize CMBFAST} \citep{SEZA96} to 

914: generate CMB temperature maps of $200'\times200'$ ($1000\times1000$ pixels)

915: and set the pixel scale $0.\!'2$ smaller than detector beam sizes. Given

916: a cluster mass $M$ and redshift $z_L$, we first compute the convergence field

917: $\kappa(\Vang)$ using Eq.~(\ref{eq:kappa}). The lensing potential $\phi(\Vang)$ 

918: and its deflection vector $\bdv{d}(\Vang)$ of the cluster are then computed

919: in Fourier space, where their relations to $\kappa(\Vang)$ become a simple

920: multiplication.

921: The lensed temperature field $\lenT(\Vang)$ is computed by displacing

922: the intrinsic temperature field $T(\Vang)$ with $\bdv{d}(\Vang)$ according to

923: Eq.~(\ref{eq:lensing}). Finally, we smooth $\lenT(\Vang)$ with a telescope

924: beam and add detector noises to obtain $\Tobs(\Vang)$.

925: Standard quadratic estimators can be used to reconstruct a convergence

926: field $\khat(\Vang)$ by using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:G}), (\ref{eq:W}), and 

927: (\ref{eq:GW}) with $\Tobs(\Vang)$, and so can modified quadratic estimators

928: with a choice of $\lcut$, beyond which the integrand in Eq.~(\ref{eq:G})

929: is set zero.

930: 

931: Similarly, our new estimation process begins with finding a solution

932: $\bhat$ to the delensing equation $\bhat=\Vang+\ang\phi^m(\Vang)$ given the

933: lensing potential $\phi^m(\Vang)$ of an assumed initial model. We then 

934: construct a delensed temperature field $\That(\bhat)=\Tobs(\Vang)$ and

935: use the same equations with $\Tobs(\Vang)$ replaced by $\That(\bhat)$

936: to reconstruct $\khat_\bdv{L}$. Imposing a consistency condition between

937: the assumed model and the estimation result can provide a criterion for the

938: iteration convergence of our improved quadratic estimators.

939: 

940: ACT and SPT will find $\sim2\times10^4$

941: massive clusters mainly by the spectral distortion of 

942: the CMB arising from the inverse Compton scattering of hot electrons in 

943: clusters, so called the SZ effect \citep{SUZE70,SUZE72},

944: with roughly redshift-independent threshold mass 

945: $M\geq2\times10^{14}\hmsun$. To test our improved quadratic estimators,

946: we consider a typical cluster of $M=5\times10^{14}\hmsun$ and $c=3$.

947: Figure~\ref{fig:residual} shows the reconstructed $\khat(\Vang)$ of a 

948: massive cluster at $z_L=1$ in an ideal experiment with $\Delta_T=0$. 

949: Here we simply adopt a NFW profile with fixed concentration

950: $c=3$ for our initial model 

951: and allow mass $\Minit$ of the model to vary. Even with fixed concentration,

952: $r_s$ changes as a function of $\Minit$, and hence our assumption allows

953: for changes in the shape as well as the scaling of initial mass models. 

954: However, note that while we use this parametrized model of clusters,

955: our reconstruction is general and non-parametric, such that we recover

956: 2-D structure of

957: $\kappa(\Vang)$ at each pixel rather than obtain model parameters $M$ and $c$

958: (see \citep{DODEL04,LEKI06} for reconstructing a parametrized cluster model). 

959: We assume that the cluster center is known from other observations with 

960: uncertainty less than our pixel scale $0.\!'2$.

961: The upper panels show the reconstructed $\khat(\Vang)$ from our

962: improved quadratic estimator using an initial model of

963: $\Minit=5\times10^{14}\hmsun$ ({\it left}) and $1\times10^{14}\hmsun$ 

964: ({\it right}), and the bottom panels

965: show the residual after the true $\kappa(\Vang)$ is subtracted from the top

966: panels.

967: 

968: \begin{figure}

969: \centerline{\psfig{file=f3.eps, width=3.0in}}

970: \caption{Dependence of reconstructed mass profiles on an initial mass model

971: $\Minit$. Thick and thin solid lines represent the true cluster mass profile 

972: and the mean of reconstructed mass profiles from 500 clusters. 

973: The mass profiles are obtained by averaging reconstructed convergence

974: over the annulus of each cluster. 

975: The uncertainties in the mean profile are shown as shaded regions.

976: Dashed lines show an assumed

977: initial mass model and the cluster virial radius is shown as vertical

978: dotted lines. In Panels~($c$) and~($d$), the initial mass models are 

979: taken as the mean mass profile from the previous

980: iteration. The reconstruction quickly converges to the true mass profile 

981: in two iterations even with an incorrect 

982: choice of $\Minit=1\times10^{14}\hmsun$, 

983: exhibiting no detectable bias in an ideal experiment.}

984: \label{fig:iQE}

985: \end{figure}

986: 

987: With the perfect initial model in the left panels, the delensed temperature

988: field $\That(\Vang)$ is identical to the intrinsic $T(\Vang)$, and our improved

989: quadratic estimator returns $no$ change on average to the initial model

990: ({\it bottom}). However, there exist random noises in $\khat(\Vang)$ over the

991: map, arising from the fluctuations of the intrinsic temperature gradient,

992: though they are evidently small and discernible from the massive cluster

993: ({\it top}). In the right panels, $\lenT(\Vang)$ is delensed with the imperfect

994: initial model, so that $\That(\Vang)$ is not identical to $T(\Vang)$ but 

995: the lensing effect is significantly reduced.

996: In this regime, quadratic estimators become asymptotically

997: optimal and reconstruct $\kappa(\Vang)$ unbiased. The top panel exhibits

998: small anisotropy and some residual remains in the bottom panel. In a single

999: patchy of the sky, the CMB anisotropy has a gradient direction and 

1000: gravitational lensing of the CMB makes no difference orthogonal to the 

1001: gradient direction, in which reconstruction is completely degenerate,

1002: resulting in the asymmetry in $\khat(\Vang)$.

1003: However, since the CMB has no preferred direction, this obstacle can be 

1004: overcome by stacking clusters in different patches of the sky. In practice,

1005: this stacking process provides the average $\kappa(\Vang)$ of the clusters,

1006: or the cluster-mass

1007: cross-correlation function \citep{HUDEVA07}. Hereafter we assume that identical

1008: clusters are stacked for simplicity.

1009: 

1010: We now quantify the ability to reconstruct $\kappa(\Vang)$ with varying

1011: accuracy of assumed models. Figure~\ref{fig:iQE} plots the reconstructed

1012: cluster mass profiles from 500 clusters ({\it thin solid}). The mass profiles

1013: are obtained by averaging reconstructed $\khat(\Vang)$ over the annulus of 

1014: each cluster, and the uncertainties in the mean mass profile

1015: are shown as shaded 

1016: regions. Figure~\ref{fig:iQE}$a$ shows that our improved quadratic

1017: estimator is unbiased when our assumed model is perfect; it 

1018: recovers the true model ({\it thick solid}) with no bias. If an 

1019: assumed initial model is significantly different from the true model

1020: in Fig.~\ref{fig:iQE}$b$,

1021: the improved quadratic estimator suffers from the same problem

1022: that the standard quadratic estimators have, and the reconstruction is again

1023: biased low when the residual lensing effect is large. However, the 

1024: reconstructed $\khat(\Vang)$ is inconsistent with our assumed model

1025: ({\it dashed}), implying that it has not converged to the correct solution.

1026: In Fig.~\ref{fig:iQE}$c$ we take the reconstructed $\khat(\Vang)$ as a new

1027: initial model and apply our improved quadratic estimator to the same clusters.

1028: The reconstructed $\khat(\Vang)$ is now close to the true $\kappa(\Vang)$,

1029: but still inconsistent with the assumed model. We iterate once more in 

1030: Fig.~\ref{fig:iQE}$d$ and the reconstructed $\khat(\Vang)$ is identical to

1031: the true $\kappa(\Vang)$. One more iteration results in no further change

1032: and the estimate is consistent with the assumed and also the true models,

1033: indicating the convergence of our estimates.

1034: 

1035: Even with the imperfect initial model, the

1036: reconstruction quickly converges to the true $\kappa(\Vang)$ and 

1037: no significant bias develops even beyond $\Rvir$ ({\it dotted}).

1038: When the reconstructed $\khat(\Vang)$ is inconsistent with the assumed model,

1039: one can in principle adopt a different initial model for a faster convergence

1040: before applying the estimator iteratively. Note that the asymmetry seen

1041: in Fig.~\ref{fig:residual} disappears and the reconstructed $\khat(\Vang)$

1042: restores symmetry,

1043: once many clusters are stacked. Furthermore, the uncertainties in the mean

1044: profile decrease as our assumed model converges to the true model, because

1045: it solely results from the intrinsic fluctuations of the CMB in the case of

1046: perfect delensing.

1047: 

1048: \begin{figure}

1049: \centerline{\psfig{file=f4.eps, width=3.0in}}

1050: \caption{Mass profile reconstruction for low mass clusters 

1051: of $M=1~\times10^{14}\hmsun$ at $z_L=0.3$ from standard

1052: (sQE) and improved (iQE) quadratic estimators (in the same format as in 

1053: Fig.~\ref{fig:iQE}). 10,000 ({\it left}) and 1000 ({\it right}) clusters 

1054: are used to obtain the mean profile, and the shaded region shows the 

1055: uncertainties in the mean profile. Both estimators recover the true mass

1056: profiles within $\Rvir$ in the low mass regime.

1057: Approximately ten times more clusters are needed for sQE to achieve

1058: the same accuracy than for iQE. However, for comparison we plot the mean 

1059: profile from 1000 clusters as the dot-dashed line in the left panel.}

1060: \label{fig:lowM}

1061: \end{figure}

1062: 

1063: \begin{figure*}

1064: \centerline{\psfig{file=f5.eps, width=5.5in}}

1065: \caption{Comparison of reconstructed mass profiles from standard (sQE), 

1066: modified (mQE), and improved (iQE) quadratic estimators 

1067: in realistic experiments with $\spix=5\muK$. 

1068: The reconstruction is more difficult in the presence of detector noise and

1069: telescope beam. For the mean of reconstructed mass profiles,

1070: 10,000 clusters of $M=5\times10^{14}\hmsun$ at $z_L=1$ are stacked when sQE or 

1071: mQE is used, while iQE is iteratively applied to only 1000 clusters. 

1072: The shaded regions show the uncertainties in the mean profile.

1073: The dot-dashed line (panel~$d$) shows the shape distortion in $\khat(\Vang)$

1074: when mQE is applied after beam-deconvolution, and the line is displaced to 

1075: avoid confusion (see the text). With $\tfwhm=1'$ (panel~$f$),

1076: iQE can recover the mean mass profile 

1077: with small bias below the beam scale. For comparison, we plot

1078: the reconstructed mass profile ({\it dot-dashed}) using mQE in Panel~($f$).}

1079: \label{fig:com}

1080: \end{figure*}

1081: 

1082: 

1083: \subsection{Performance Comparison}

1084: \label{ssec:com}

1085: Before we assess the performance of the three lensing estimators 

1086: in realistic experiments,

1087: we first compare our improved quadratic estimator to the standard quadratic

1088: estimator, when the lensing effect is small. Figure~\ref{fig:lowM} plots

1089: the reconstructed cluster mass profiles in the same format as 

1090: Fig.~\ref{fig:iQE}. For clusters of $M=1\times10^{14}\hmsun$ at $z_L=0.3$ 

1091: ($\kappa\ll1$),

1092: the improved quadratic estimator recovers the true mass profile with no 

1093: detectable bias after two iterations. With signals smaller by

1094: a factor of five than in Fig.~\ref{fig:iQE}, 1000 clusters are

1095:  stacked to obtain the mean mass profile, while 10,000 clusters are

1096: required for the standard quadratic estimator. As we quantify the

1097: difference in the signal-to-noise ratio below, 

1098: the standard quadratic estimator needs approximately 

1099: ten times as many clusters as the improved quadratic estimator needs to

1100: achieve the same accuracy, 

1101: but we show the mean profile ({\it dot-dashed}) obtained by applying the

1102: standard quadratic estimator to 1000 clusters for comparison. Once enough

1103: clusters are stacked, the standard quadratic estimator

1104: works well within $\Rvir$, though it shows some hint of deviation

1105: at the core. Thus, the standard quadratic

1106: estimator may be safely used to reconstruct mass profiles of clusters with

1107: $M<1\times10^{14}\hmsun$ at $z_L=0.3$. However, given the source of the CMB

1108: at $z_\star=1090$, the lensing effect becomes larger

1109: as $z_L$ increases, until $\Sigma_\up{crit}$ reaches the minimum at 

1110: $z_L\simeq2.5$, where $D_L$ becomes a half of $D_\star$. Therefore, the standard

1111: quadratic estimator cannot be used to reconstruct unbiased mass profiles of

1112: clusters that are either at $z_L\geq0.3$ or massive 

1113: $M\geq1\times10^{14}\hmsun$. Since

1114: ACT and SPT will find clusters of $M\geq2\times10^{14}\hmsun$ 

1115: at higher redshift, modified

1116: or improved quadratic estimators are preferred to the standard quadratic 

1117: estimator.

1118: 

1119: Now we consider realistic experiments with $\spix=5\muK$ and compare

1120: the performance of the lensing estimators in Fig.~\ref{fig:com}. 

1121: Since the reconstruction becomes noisier in the

1122: presence of detector noise and telescope beam,

1123: 10,000 clusters are stacked for the mean mass profiles when the standard

1124: or modified quadratic estimator is used, while the improved quadratic estimator

1125: is iteratively applied to only 1000 clusters. For clusters

1126: of $M=5\times10^{14}\hmsun$ at $z_L=1$, Fig.~\ref{fig:com}$a$ shows that 

1127: the standard 

1128: quadratic estimators become substantially biased  in a region around

1129: massive clusters, consistent with the previous results 

1130: \citep{MABAMEET05,HUDEVA07}. Quadratic terms in $\phi_\vL$ ignored in

1131: the linear approximation coherently contribute to $\khat_\vL$, and hence the

1132: reconstructed $\khat(\Vang)$ is biased 

1133: low where the linear approximation is violated \citep{HUDEVA07}.

1134: 

1135: Next we consider a modified quadratic estimator in Fig.~\ref{fig:com}$b$ 

1136: and adopt $\lcut=1500$. The modified quadratic

1137: estimator recovers the true mass profile within $\Rvir$ but with small

1138: deviation beyond $\Rvir$. The modified quadratic estimators operate

1139: in the same way of the standard quadratic estimators, except signals are

1140: removed on small scales ($l\geq\lcut$), 

1141: where the linear approximation is violated.

1142: However, the choice of $\lcut$ is rather arbitrary and should be calibrated

1143: against simulations: lower $\lcut$ is needed for more massive clusters.

1144: Note that the modified quadratic estimator with 

1145: $\lcut\rightarrow\infty$ 

1146: exactly reduces to the standard quadratic estimator

1147: (in practice $\lcut\gtrsim10^4$ can achieve this limit because of the Silk 

1148: damping). In other words, a modified quadratic estimator 

1149: with $\lcut\simeq10^4$ fails to reconstruct

1150: the mass profile (born out by Fig.~\ref{fig:com}$a$).

1151: Moreover, we had to adopt $\lcut=1500$ to reconstruct the mass profile

1152: in Fig.~\ref{fig:com}$b$ and~\ref{fig:com}$d$, a more aggressive choice

1153: than $\lcut=2000$ proposed in \citep{HUDEVA07}, with which

1154: we cannot recover the mass profile.  This reflects the

1155: sensitivity of the modified quadratic estimator to $\lcut$ as a function of

1156: cluster mass.

1157: Larger number of clusters are also required to reconstruct the true mean

1158: mass profile due to the reduction in the signal-to-noise ratio.

1159: 

1160: Figure~\ref{fig:com}$c$ shows the reconstruction by our improved quadratic

1161: estimator with $\Minit=1\times10^{14}\hmsun$. The improved quadratic 

1162: estimator recovers

1163: the true mass profile with no significant bias in the presence of detector

1164: noise. After a few iterations, the estimates quickly converge to the true

1165: model and the scatter around the mean is greatly reduced compared to 

1166: Fig.~\ref{fig:com}$b$. Note that we iteratively applied the improved quadratic

1167: estimator to the same 1000 clusters.

1168: 

1169: In Fig.~\ref{fig:com}$d$ and \ref{fig:com}$e$, we consider the effect of

1170: telescope beam with $\tfwhm=0.\!'5$. Both estimators

1171: in Fig.~\ref{fig:com}$d$ and \ref{fig:com}$e$ recover the true mass profile

1172: unbiased in the presence of detector beam, while there exist some deviations

1173: in both cases.

1174: However, note that we explicitly account for the beam 

1175: effect using the formulas developed in Sec.~\ref{ssec:qe}, rather than 

1176: deconvolve the beam before applying the lensing estimators. The latter

1177: approach often used in the literature suffers from deconvolved detector noise

1178: exponentiating on small scales. This problem requires a low-pass filtering

1179: of reconstructed $\khat(\Vang)$, additionally

1180: removing the signals below the beam scale,

1181: which results in a distortion of its shape of $\khat(\Vang)$,

1182: making it hard to compare directly to theoretical predictions. 

1183: However, in reality 

1184: beam convolution suppresses detector noises (of course  lensing signals

1185: as well), and it simply makes the reconstruction noisy below the beam scale.

1186: The dot-dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:com}$d$

1187: contrasts the reconstruction when we explicitly remove 

1188: $\khat(\Vang)$ at $l\geq1/\sbeam$, where $\khat(\Vang)$ is

1189: obtained by applying the modified quadratic estimator with

1190: beam-deconvolved data (the line is displaced to avoid confusion with other

1191: lines). Significant shape distortion in $\khat(\Vang)$ 

1192: complicates the interpretation.

1193: 

1194: For a larger beam size comparable to the scale radius of the clusters

1195: ($\tfwhm\simeq1'$), the reconstruction becomes more challenging: modified

1196: quadratic estimators cannot recover the cluster mass profile without 

1197: significant shape distortion ({\it dot-dashed}).

1198: The improved quadratic estimator in Fig.~\ref{fig:com}$f$

1199: recovers the true mass profile beyond $\Rvir$, while it develops small

1200: bias below the beam scale. 

1201: 

1202: Figure~\ref{fig:err} plots the fractional difference between the lensing 

1203: estimates and the true cluster mass profile in Fig.~\ref{fig:com}, 

1204: comparing their uncertainty in the mean profile. The difference ({\it lines})

1205: is computed from the mean mass profiles by stacking 10,000 clusters for 

1206: both estimators, while the statistical uncertainty

1207: ({\it gray bands}) in the difference is scaled for 500 clusters for 

1208: comparison.

1209: The left panel shows that both estimators recover the cluster mass profile

1210: at the 5\% level or better in the absence of telescope beam, 

1211: while the modified quadratic estimator may need fine-tuning of $\lcut$ to

1212: achieve better accuracy. However, the difference in their measurement 

1213: uncertainty is in stark contrast: the improved quadratic estimator has a

1214: significantly higher signal-to-noise ratio than the modified quadratic

1215: estimator. While the reconstruction becomes harder especially beyond $\Rvir$

1216: in the presence of telescope beam shown in the right panel,

1217: this trend of signal-to-noise ratio difference persists.

1218: Note that due to the beam smoothing effect the uncertainty in the estimates 

1219: at $\theta\leq\tfwhm$ is reduced while it is highly correlated among adjacent

1220: bins.

1221: 

1222: So far 

1223: we have numerically demonstrated the performance of the lensing estimators

1224: in Figs.~\ref{fig:com} and~\ref{fig:err}:

1225: standard quadratic estimators are significantly 

1226: biased; modified and improved quadratic estimators recover the cluster 

1227: mass profile with no bias, while they show substantial difference

1228: in the number of clusters that is required to obtain the mean mass profile.

1229: To quantify this difference, we evaluate 

1230: $\Delta\chi^2$ of each lensing estimator

1231: \beeq

1232: \Delta\chi^2=\sum_{\theta,\theta'}\kappa(\theta)~C_{\khat}^{-1}(\theta,\theta')

1233: ~\kappa(\theta'),

1234: \eneq

1235: where the covariance matrix of $\khat(\theta)$ is 

1236: \beeq

1237: C_{\khat}(\theta,\theta')=\left\langle\left[\khat(\theta)-\kappa(\theta)\right]

1238: \left[\khat(\theta')-\kappa(\theta')\right]\right\rangle.

1239: \eneq

1240: Since $\khat(\Vang)$ is computed from the two Wiener-filtered functions of

1241: the CMB temperature anisotropies, the covariance matrix is non-diagonal.

1242: The finite width of the convolution filter $H(\Vang)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:filterH})

1243: also reflects that the lensing estimators are a non-local function of the CMB

1244: temperature anisotropies, and hence non-zero $C_{\khat}$ 

1245: when $\theta\neq\theta'$.

1246: 

1247: \begin{figure}

1248: \centerline{\psfig{file=f6.eps, width=3.0in}}

1249: \caption{Fractional difference between the lensing estimates and the true

1250: cluster mass profile in Fig.~\ref{fig:com}. The difference ({\it lines})

1251: is computed from the mean mass profiles obtained by stacking 10,000 clusters

1252: for both estimators,

1253: while the statistical uncertainty ({\it gray bands}) in the difference is 

1254: scaled for 500 clusters. The vertical dotted lines show

1255: the cluster virial radius.}

1256: \label{fig:err}

1257: \end{figure}

1258: 

1259: In the absence of telescope beam in Figs.~\ref{fig:com}$b$,~\ref{fig:com}$c$,

1260: and~\ref{fig:err}$a$, the ratio of $\Delta\chi^2$ for the modified quadratic

1261: estimator relative to the improved quadratic estimator is 8.1:

1262: a factor of eight larger number

1263: of clusters is required for the modified quadratic estimator to achieve the

1264: same level of accuracy than that for the improved quadratic estimator.

1265: In the presence of telescope beam in Figs.~\ref{fig:com}$d$,~\ref{fig:com}$e$,

1266: and~\ref{fig:err}$b$, 

1267: beam smoothing substantially degrades the ability to recover the

1268: true cluster mass profile for both estimators, and its effect is

1269: relatively larger for the modified quadratic estimator, increasing

1270: the ratio to 10.4. 

1271: 

1272: \subsection{Sunyaev-Zel'dovich Effects}

1273: \label{ssec:sz}

1274: On small scales ($l>2000$), the primordial CMB temperature anisotropies decay

1275: exponentially due to the Silk damping \citep{SILK68} and the dominant source

1276: of secondary anisotropies is the thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (tSZ) effect,

1277: arising from scattering off hot electrons in massive clusters. However, the

1278: tSZ effect imprints a unique frequency dependence in the CMB temperature

1279: anisotropies, which in principle can be used to remove the tSZ signals.

1280: The same Compton scattering process also gives rise to a Doppler effect in the 

1281: CMB temperature anisotropies due to the bulk motion of electron gas, or

1282: the kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (kSZ) effect (see \citep{BIRKI99,CAHORE02}

1283: for recent reviews). These kSZ signals, albeit smaller than tSZ signals,

1284: are spectrally indistinguishable from the intrinsic CMB temperature 

1285: anisotropies, introducing an artifact in the lensing reconstruction. Here

1286: we assume that the tSZ signals can be cleaned perfectly, and 

1287: we investigate how the kSZ signals deteriorate the lensing reconstruction.

1288: 

1289: For simplicity, we assume that the gas density traces the dark matter 

1290: distribution in a massive cluster, with the same NFW profile. Given the 

1291: line-of-sight velocity $v_\up{los}$ of the cluster, the kSZ effect results

1292: in temperature anisotropies

1293: \beeq

1294: \Delta T(\theta)=-v_\up{los}~\tau(\theta)~T_\up{CMB}\equiv-\Delta T_\up{kSZ}

1295: ~{\Sigma(\theta)\over\Sigma(0)},

1296: \label{eq:kszT}

1297: \eneq

1298: where $\tau(\theta)$ is the Thompson scattering

1299: optical depth, proportional to the projected density $\Sigma(r=D_L~\theta)$. 

1300: We parametrized the product of 

1301: $v_\up{los}$ and $\tau(0)$ as $\Delta T_\up{kSZ}$. 

1302: Note that since the intrinsic CMB and kSZ induced anisotropies dilute in the

1303: same way as the universe expands, there is no $(1+z_L)$ factor in 

1304: Eq.~(\ref{eq:kszT}) and $T_\up{CMB}=2.725$K is the CMB temperature today.

1305: 

1306: For a typical cluster with

1307: electron number density $\sim0.01~\up{cm}^{-3}$ and core radius $\sim100$~kpc,

1308: the Thompson scattering optical depth is $\tau(0)=2\times10^{-3}$ at the core. 

1309: The rms velocity

1310: dispersion in linear theory is $\sigma_v=1.3\times10^{-3}(=390~\kms)$ 

1311: at $z_L=1$,

1312: and this results in the rms temperature fluctuation $\Delta T_\up{kSZ}=3.7\muK$

1313: at the core. We randomly draw $\Delta T(0)$ from a Gaussian distribution with

1314: zero mean and dispersion $\sigma=\Delta T_\up{kSZ}$, 

1315: then we add $\Delta T(\Vang)$ to $\lenT(\Vang)$ for observations of 

1316: each cluster. 

1317: 

1318: \begin{figure}

1319: \centerline{\psfig{file=f7.eps, width=3.0in}}

1320: \caption{(color online)

1321: Cluster lensing and kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (kSZ) effects on 

1322: the CMB. For comparison, we plot $6'\times6'$ regions of CMB temperature maps

1323: around a cluster of $M=5\times10^{14}\hmsun$ ($\theta_\up{vir}=3.\!\!'0$) 

1324: at $z_L=1$.

1325: {\it Upper panels}: lensed temperature map ({\it left})

1326: and its difference from the intrinsic temperature map ({\it right}).

1327: {\it Bottom panels}: assuming that the cluster is 

1328: moving toward an observer, the kSZ effect is set

1329: $\Delta T_\up{kSZ}=3$ ({\it left}) and $15\muK$ ({\it right}) at the center.

1330: The color scales in each panel represent the same temperature except in the 

1331: upper right panel, where the color represents the difference ranging from

1332: $-5\muK$ to $5\muK$.}

1333: \label{fig:kszshow}

1334: \end{figure}

1335: 

1336: First, we compare the cluster lensing and kSZ effects on the CMB temperature

1337: field. Figure~\ref{fig:kszshow} plots a 6'$\times$6' regions of CMB maps

1338: around a cluster of $M=5\times10^{14}\hmsun$ ($\theta_\up{vir}=3.\!\!'0$) 

1339: at $z_L=1$.

1340: The top panels show the lensed temperature field ({\it left}) and the

1341: difference from the intrinsic temperature field ({\it right}). Gravitational

1342: lensing imprints dipole-like wiggles in the CMB map on top of the smooth

1343: large-scale gradient field. Perpendicular to the gradient direction there

1344: exists no temperature change and hence lensing reconstruction is degenerate

1345: along the direction. The bottom panels show the kSZ effect with

1346: $\Delta T_\up{kSZ}=3\muK$ ({\it left}) and $15\muK$ ({\it right}). We assume

1347: that the cluster is moving toward the observer. With the small optical depth

1348: in the left panel, the kSZ effect is relatively small compared to the lensing

1349: effect. Larger optical depth in the right panel substantially enhances the

1350: kSZ effect, dominating over the lensing effect at the center. However, since

1351: the lensing effect is much less concentrated than the kSZ effect as the 

1352: dipole-like wiggles peak at a few scale radii ({\it top right}),

1353: the reconstruction is still possible.

1354: 

1355: Figure~\ref{fig:ksz} shows the impact of the kSZ effect on reconstructing

1356: mass profiles. For clusters of $M=5\times10^{14}\hmsun$ at $z_L=1$ in 

1357: an experiment

1358: with $\tfwhm=1'$ and $\spix=5\muK$, we iteratively

1359: use improved quadratic estimators with $\Minit=1\times10^{14}\hmsun$.

1360: The mean and the uncertainties are computed

1361: from 1000 clusters. Figure~\ref{fig:ksz}$a$ shows that the kSZ effect with

1362: $\Delta T_\up{kSZ}=3\muK$ has relatively little impact on the reconstruction:

1363: the kSZ effect becomes negligible beyond $r_s$ because the density profile

1364: declines $r^{-3}$ (the gas density in reality would be steeper and

1365: more confined to the center than we assumed here). The lensing effect, on the

1366: other hand, is sensitive to the deflection field and remains strong beyond

1367: $r_s$, declining less rapidly than the kSZ effect \citep{SEZA96}.

1368: In Fig.~\ref{fig:ksz}$b$,

1369: we consider a larger kSZ effect with $\Delta T_\up{kSZ}=15\muK$, expected

1370: either from higher electron number density or from higher matter fluctuation

1371: normalization $\rms\propto\sigma_v$. With the temperature anisotropies 

1372: comparable to the lensing effect, the reconstruction becomes difficult and

1373: it starts to develop bias around $\Rvir$ as $\Delta T_\up{kSZ}$ increases.

1374: Note that the bias at the center is largely due to the telescope beam effect.

1375: 

1376: \begin{figure}

1377: \centerline{\psfig{file=f8.eps, width=3.0in}}

1378: \caption{Impact of kinetic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (kSZ) effects on the mass profile

1379: reconstruction. Assuming that the gas distribution traces

1380: the dark matter distribution in clusters, the kSZ effect is computed by 

1381: assigning a Gaussian random velocity to each cluster

1382: with rms temperature change $\Delta T_\up{kSZ}=3$ ({\it left}) and 

1383: $15\muK$ ({\it right}) at the center, respectively.}

1384: \label{fig:ksz}

1385: \end{figure}

1386: 

1387: In the presence of contaminants such as residual foreground or tSZ effect,

1388: radio point sources, and large kSZ effect, the lensing estimators based on

1389: temperature anisotropies need to be complemented by using lensing estimators

1390: based on combination of temperature and E- and B-mode polarization

1391: \citep{OKHU03}, since there exists no significant source of contamination that

1392: mimics the intrinsic CMB polarization. Furthermore, the unique relation between

1393: the E- and B-mode polarization signals \citep{SEZA97,KAKOST97} can be used to

1394: provide a robust consistency check. However, measurements of the lensed

1395: polarization fields would require an experiment with higher angular resolution

1396: and sensitive detectors than experiments that are currently available.

1397: 

1398: \section{Discussion}

1399: \label{sec:con}

1400: Weak gravitational lensing of the CMB gives rise to a deviation of the 

1401: two-point correlation function of the CMB temperature anisotropies from 

1402: otherwise statistically isotropic function. Quadratic estimators 

1403: \citep{HU01b} have been

1404: widely used to reconstruct cluster mass profiles and large-scale structure

1405: by measuring the induced anisotropies in the two-point correlation function.

1406: We have shown that standard quadratic estimators become optimal in the

1407: limit of no lensing, saturating the Cram\'er-Rao bound, while they become

1408: progressively biased and sub-optimal as the lensing effect increases. 

1409: Especially for clusters that can be found by the ongoing SZ surveys like 

1410: ACT and SPT, the standard quadratic estimators start to be biased at 

1411: $z_L\simeq0.3$, and at higher redshift, where the lensing effect is larger,

1412: other estimators should be used to reconstruct cluster mass profiles.

1413: 

1414: It is recently proposed \citep{HUDEVA07}

1415: that this obstacle in the standard quadratic estimators

1416: can be overcome by explicitly removing the signals in the CMB temperature

1417: gradient field at $l\geq\lcut$, where the lensing effect is large in violation

1418: of the linear approximation. However, although these

1419: modified quadratic estimators

1420: recover cluster mass profiles with no significant bias, the choice of $\lcut$

1421: is somewhat arbitrary and it depends on the lensing effect, which requires

1422: prior calibrations against numerical simulations before one can apply the

1423: modified quadratic estimators to CMB maps.

1424: 

1425: We have developed a new maximum likelihood estimator for reconstructing 

1426: cluster mass profiles and large-scale structure. We first construct a CMB

1427: temperature field by delensing the observed temperature field based on an

1428: assumed mass model. We have proved that the delensed temperature field is 

1429: close to the unlensed temperature field with telescope beam smoothed and

1430: detector noise added, if the assumed mass model is a good approximation to 

1431: the true mass model. The delensed temperature field can then be used to set up

1432: the likelihood of the CMB, and our new estimator that maximizes this 

1433: likelihood takes a similar form of the standard quadratic estimators,

1434: because it approaches to an optimal estimator as the assumed model becomes

1435: the true model. Our maximum likelihood estimator can be iteratively applied

1436: as we

1437: update the assumed mass model, until it converges (to the true model) and

1438: the estimate is consistent with the assumed model. Our maximum likelihood

1439: estimator, named as an improved quadratic estimator, is easy to implement

1440: in practice and it has no free parameter.

1441: 

1442: Our improved quadratic estimators quickly converge to the true mass model

1443: after a few iterations, even when an assumed initial model is 

1444: significantly different from the true model. 

1445: When the estimate is inconsistent with the

1446: assumed model, one can adopt another initial model for iterations for faster

1447: convergence of the improved quadratic estimators. The telescope beam and 

1448: detector noise renders the reconstruction harder, but we have demonstrated

1449: that the improved quadratic estimators recover cluster mass profiles with a beam

1450: size comparable to the cluster scale radius.

1451: Furthermore, our new estimator significantly improves the signal-to-noise

1452: ratio over the standard or modified quadratic estimators by a factor of 

1453: ten in number of clusters, because when

1454: an assumed model is close to the true mass model, the only source of noise

1455: for our estimator is the intrinsic fluctuations of the CMB temperature 

1456: gradient.

1457: 

1458: We have tested the robustness of the improved quadratic estimators in the

1459: presence of the kSZ effect. The kSZ distortion $\Delta T_\up{kSZ}\leq15\muK$

1460: at the center results in relatively small bias in the reconstructed cluster

1461: mass profiles. However, since the optical depth is a function of 

1462: electron number density in the clusters, it is related to the true mass

1463: profile.

1464: Therefore, we could take a more aggressive approach to

1465: modeling kSZ signals from an assumed initial mass model and subtract the

1466: kSZ contributions before applying  improved quadratic estimators. 

1467: Furthermore, this template for kSZ signals can also be iteratively refined 

1468: as we update our assumed mass model.

1469: 

1470: Since the reconstruction is non-parametric, it is not limited to spherical

1471: clusters, while stacking many clusters ensures that irregular shapes of

1472: individual clusters become irrelevant. 

1473: Similar arguments can be applied to projection effects: 

1474: each cluster can be located at a line-of-sight with overdense or underdense

1475: regions, but projection effects become negligible once many lines-of-sight are 

1476: combined.

1477: Given a sample of clusters from SZ surveys, the average mass profile

1478: of stacked clusters would provide a cluster-mass cross-correlation function,

1479: which can be used to measure the growth rate of structure, probing the 

1480: evolution of dark energy, instead of individual cluster mass profiles.

1481: 

1482: However, in reality it would be harder to reconstruct

1483: cluster mass profiles than considered here, because there exist other

1484: contaminants such as point radio sources and residual foreground and/or tSZ

1485: effect, and other complications such as non-isolated clusters

1486: and internal bulk motion of gas in clusters. However, additional information

1487: from polarization measurements may be used to overcome some of the 

1488: difficulties, given the unique relation between the E- and B-mode polarization

1489: signals and relatively negligible primary and secondary contaminants.

1490: Finally we mention that our improved quadratic estimators can be applied 

1491: to reconstruct large-scale structure, while in this regime standard quadratic 

1492: estimators can be used without significant bias.

1493: 

1494: 

1495: \acknowledgments 

1496: We thank Oliver Zahn for useful discussion. J.~Y. thanks C.~K.~Chan for 

1497: technical help on FFTw routines. J.~Y. is supported by the Harvard College 

1498: Observatory under the Donald~H. Menzel fund.

1499: M.~Z. is supported by the David and Lucile Packard, the Alfred~P. Sloan,

1500: and the John~D. and Catherine~T. MacArthur Foundations.

1501: This work was further supported by NSF grant AST~05-06556 and NASA ATP

1502: grant NNG~05GJ40G.

1503: 

1504: 

1505: \appendix

1506: \section{Delensed Temperature Field}

1507: \label{app:delens}

1508: Here we derive a relation 

1509: $\That_\vL\simeq T_\vL ~e^{-{1\over2}l^2\sbeam^2}+T^N_\vL$ in the 

1510: presence of telescope beam and detector noise. Given the lensing potential

1511: $\phi^m(\Vang)$ of an assumed mass model, the lensing equation relates an image

1512: position $\Vang$ to a source position $\bhat^m=\Vang+\ang\phi^m(\Vang)$.

1513: Here we keep the superscript $m$ to indicate the relation to the assumed

1514: model. The true source position is then

1515: $\bhat=\Vang+\ang\phi(\Vang)$, where $\phi(\Vang)$ is the true lensing 

1516: potential. Now we construct a delensed temperature field

1517: \bear

1518: \That(\bhat^m)&=&\Tobs(\Vang) \\

1519: &=&\int d^2\Vangm ~B(\Vangm-\Vang)~\lenT(\Vangm)+T^N(\Vang), \nonumber

1520: \enar

1521: where $B(\Vangm)$ is the telescope beam function.

1522: Since the lensing equation is not analytically invertible in general, we

1523: keep both $\bhat^m$ and $\Vang$, but note that they are not independent

1524: variables. In Fourier space, the delensed temperature field is

1525: \beeq

1526: \That_\vL=\int d^2\bhat^m ~\That(\bhat^m)~e^{-i\vL\cdot\bhat^m}\equiv

1527: \That^S_\vL+\That^N_\vL,

1528: \eneq

1529: with a contribution from the CMB

1530: \bear

1531: \That^S_\vL&=&\int d^2\bhat^m \int d^2\Vangm~ B(\Vangm-\Vang)~\lenT(\Vangm)

1532: ~e^{-i\vL\cdot\bhat^m} \nonumber \\

1533: &=&\int d^2\vL_1~ B_{\vL_1}\lenT_{\vL_1}\int{d^2\bhat^m\over(2\pi)^2}~

1534: e^{i\vL_1\cdot\Vang-i\vL\cdot\bhat^m},

1535: \label{app:gen}

1536: \enar

1537: and a contribution from the detector noise

1538: \bear

1539: \That^N_\vL&=&\int d^2\bhat^m ~T^N(\Vang)~e^{-i\vL\cdot\bhat^m}\\

1540: &=&\int d^2\vL_1~ T^N_{\vL_1}\int{d^2\bhat^m\over(2\pi)^2}~

1541: e^{i\vL_1\cdot\Vang-i\vL\cdot\bhat^m}. \nonumber

1542: \enar

1543: 

1544: \begin{figure}

1545: \centerline{\psfig{file=f9.eps, width=3.0in}}

1546: \caption{Effects of telescope beam and detector noise on the delensing 

1547: process. The top panel compares $\That_\vL$ ({\it thin}) with 

1548: $T_\vL ~e^{-{1\over2}l^2\sbeam^2}+T^N_\vL$ ({\it thick}) in terms of their 

1549: power spectrum, and the bottom panel shows the fractional deviations.

1550: The vertical dotted line represents the beam scale $l=1/\sbeam$.

1551: CMB experiments

1552: with $\tfwhm=1'$ and $\spix=5\muK$ are considered for clusters of 

1553: $M=5\times10^{14}\hmsun$ at $z_L=1$. The noise only case is largely obscured by 

1554: the solid line.}

1555: \label{fig:app}

1556: \end{figure}

1557: 

1558: 

1559: The lensed temperature is $\lenT(\Vang)=T(\bhat)$ and its Fourier mode is

1560: \beeq

1561: \lenT_\vL=\int d^2\vL_1~T_{\vL_1}\int{d^2\Vang\over(2\pi)^2}~

1562: e^{-i\vL\cdot\Vang+i\vL_1\cdot\bhat}.

1563: \eneq

1564: With the linear approximation, one can expand the exponential term to the

1565: first order in $\phi_\vL$ and this equation reduces to Eq.~(\ref{eq:lensexp}).

1566: However, we keep the equation as general as possible to be valid, even when

1567: the lensing effect is large. Substituting $\lenT_{\vL_1}$ in Eq.~(\ref{app:gen})

1568: and changing the integration variable $\Vang$ to $\bhat^m$ gives

1569: \bear

1570: \That^S_\vL&=&\int d^2\vL_1\int d^2\vL_2~B_{\vL_1}T_{\vL_2}

1571: \int{d^2\Vang\over(2\pi)^2}\int{d^2\Vang_2\over(2\pi)^2}

1572: \left|{d^2\bhat^m\over d\Vang^2}\right|\nonumber \\

1573: &\times&e^{i\vL_1\cdot(\Vang-\Vang_2)}e^{i(\vL_2\cdot\Vang_2-\vL\cdot\Vang)}~

1574: e^{i\left[\vL_2\cdot\ang\phi(\Vang_2)-\vL\cdot\ang\phi^m(\Vang)\right]}.

1575: \enar

1576: Given the lensing potential $\phi(\Vang)$ (analogously for $\phi^m(\Vang)$),

1577: the Jacobian is related to the distortion matrix 

1578: \beeq

1579: \left|{d^2\bhat\over d\Vang^2}\right|=\left|\bdv{M}^{-1}\right|=

1580: \left|\bdv{I}+\ang\ang\phi\right|=

1581: \left|\left[1-\kappa(\Vang)\right]^2-\gamma^2(\Vang)\right|,

1582: \eneq

1583: and its inverse is the lensing magnification.

1584: 

1585: For a Gaussian beam $B_\vL=\exp\left[-{1\over2}l^2\sbeam^2\right]$, we can

1586: integrate over the beam factor

1587: \bear

1588: \That^S_\vL&=&\int d^2\vL_2~T_{\vL_2}\int{d^2\Vang\over(2\pi)^2}

1589: \int{d^2\Vang_2\over(2\pi)^2}\left|{d^2\bhat^m\over d\Vang^2}\right| \\

1590: &\times&

1591: {2\pi\over\sbeam^2}e^{-{|\Vang-\Vang_2|^2\over2\sbeam^2}}

1592: e^{i(\vL_2\cdot\Vang_2-\vL\cdot\Vang)}~

1593: e^{i\left[\vL_2\cdot\ang\phi(\Vang_2)-\vL\cdot\ang\phi^m(\Vang)\right]}. \nonumber

1594: \enar

1595: Now we parametrize $\Vang_2$ by a dimensionless displacement vector

1596: $\dsmall$ centered at $\Vang$ (i.e., $\Vang_2=\Vang+\sbeam\dsmall$).

1597: The Gaussian beam factor guarantees that the integrand is non-vanishing only

1598: when $\Delta=|\dsmall|$ is small. In order to get more intuition, we expand

1599: $\phi(\Vang_2)\simeq\phi(\Vang)+\ang\phi(\Vang)\cdot\sbeam\dsmall$

1600: to the linear order in $\Delta$, and integrating over $\dsmall$ gives

1601: \bear

1602: \That^S_\vL&=&\int d^2\vL_2~T_{\vL_2}\int{d^2\Vang\over(2\pi)^2}

1603: \left|{d^2\bhat^m\over d\Vang^2}\right|\\

1604: &\times&e^{i(\vL_2\cdot\bhat-\vL\cdot\bhat^m)}~

1605: e^{-{1\over2}\sbeam^2|\bdv{M}^{-1}\cdot\vL_2|^2}. \nonumber

1606: \enar

1607: This is the final expression for the delensed temperature field. The first

1608: exponential

1609: term of the integrand controls the delensing process: when the assumed model

1610: is close to the true model after a few iterations 

1611: ($\phi^m(\Vang)\simeq\phi(\Vang)$, $\bhat^m\simeq\bhat$), the integral becomes

1612: a Dirac delta function and $\That^S_\vL=T_\vL$, when the beam smoothing is

1613: negligible. The distortion matrix is close to the identity matrix beyond

1614: $\Rvir$ and $\That^S_\vL\simeq T_\vL ~e^{-{1\over2}l^2\sbeam^2}$. Around massive

1615: clusters, the distortion matrix deviates from the identity matrix and its

1616: determinant becomes smaller than one, making the exponential factor unity.

1617: This reflects that the beam size is reduced by a mapping from the image

1618: plane to the source plane, and practically 

1619: $\That^S_\vL\simeq T_\vL~ e^{-{1\over2}l^2\tilde\sbeam^2}$ with

1620: $\tilde\sbeam<\sbeam$.

1621: 

1622: For a white detector noise, the delensed detector noise is simply the

1623: redistributed white noise. However, since the delensing process alters the unit

1624: area on the sky,

1625: it becomes non-white but its deviation is confined to relatively small

1626: region; the noise power spectrum is

1627: \bear

1628: \langle\That^N_\vL\That^{N*}_{\vL'}\rangle&=&

1629: \int d^2\vL_1\int d^2\vL_2~\langle T^N_{\vL_1}T^{N*}_{\vL_2}\rangle \nonumber \\

1630: &\times&\int{d^2\bhat^m_1\over(2\pi)^2}\int{d^2\bhat^m_2\over(2\pi)^2}~

1631: e^{i\vL_1\cdot\Vang_1-i\vL\cdot\bhat^m_1}~e^{-i\vL_2\cdot\Vang_2+i\vL'\cdot\bhat^m_2}

1632: \nonumber\\

1633: &=&C^N\int{d^2\bhat^m_1}\int{d^2\bhat^m_2}~\delta(\Vang_1-\Vang_2)~

1634: e^{-i\vL\cdot\bhat^m_1+i\vL'\cdot\bhat^m_2} \nonumber \\

1635: &=&C^N\int{d^2\bhat^m_1}\left|{d^2\bhat^m_1\over d\Vang_1^2}\right|

1636: e^{-i(\vL-\vL')\cdot\bhat^m_1}.

1637: \enar

1638: It is the Jacobian of the distortion matrix that 

1639: makes white noise non-white in a region around massive clusters. Outside

1640: $\Rvir$, where the Jacobian is near unity, the integral becomes a Dirac

1641: delta function and the noise is again white.

1642: 

1643: Figure~\ref{fig:app} compares our delensing ($\That_\vL$: {\it thin})

1644: and perfect delensing ($T_\vL ~e^{-{1\over2}l^2\sbeam^2}+T^N_\vL$: {\it thick})

1645: processes in terms of their power spectrum. In the absence of detector noise

1646: ({\it dashed}), $\That^S_\vL$ starts to deviate from 

1647: $T_\vL~ e^{-{1\over2}l^2\sbeam^2}$ around the beam scale $l\simeq1/\sbeam$

1648: ({\it vertical dotted}), declining less rapidly. On scales below the beam scale,

1649: our approximation ($\Delta\ll1$) breaks down and $\bdv{M}^{-1}(\Vang)$ differs

1650: from the identity matrix, leading to the excess power. 

1651: However, at this scale, signals are dominated by the detector noise

1652: ({\it solid}). Since detector noises are unaffected by the beam distortion

1653: when delensed, the deviation of $\That^N_\vL$ from $T^N_\vL$

1654: is relatively mild and it is solely due to the (inverse) magnification effect

1655: of the mapping from the image plane to the source plane. The noise only

1656: case ({\it dotted}) is largely obscured by the solid line. In summary,

1657: telescope beam and detector noise has little impact on our delensing

1658: process at scales larger than the beam scale, where most of the information

1659: is contained.

1660: 

1661: \vfill

1662: 

1663: \begin{thebibliography}{37}

1664: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1665: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

1666:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1667: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

1668:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

1669: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

1670:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

1671: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

1672:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

1673: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

1674: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

1675: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

1676: 

1677: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Hirata} et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{{Hirata},

1678:   {Padmanabhan}, {Seljak}, {Schlegel}, and {Brinkmann}}}]{HIPAET04}

1679: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Hirata}}},

1680:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{{Padmanabhan}}},

1681:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{{Seljak}}},

1682:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{{Schlegel}}},

1683:   \bibnamefont{and}

1684:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{{Brinkmann}}},

1685:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}},

1686:   \bibinfo{pages}{103501} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}),

1687:   \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0406004}.

1688: 

1689: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Smith} et~al.}(2007)\citenamefont{{Smith}, {Zahn}, and

1690:   {Dor{\'e}}}}]{SMZADO07}

1691: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Smith}}},

1692:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{{Zahn}}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1693:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{{Dor{\'e}}}},

1694:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{76}},

1695:   \bibinfo{pages}{043510} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}), \eprint{arXiv:0705.3980}.

1696: 

1697: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Hirata} et~al.}(2008)\citenamefont{{Hirata}, {Ho},

1698:   {Padmanabhan}, {Seljak}, and {Bahcall}}}]{HIHOET08}

1699: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Hirata}}},

1700:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{Ho}}},

1701:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{{Padmanabhan}}},

1702:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{{Seljak}}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1703:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{{Bahcall}}},

1704:   \bibinfo{journal}{ArXiv e-prints} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{801}}

1705:   (\bibinfo{year}{2008}), \eprint{0801.0644}.

1706: 

1707: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Calabrese} et~al.}(2008)\citenamefont{{Calabrese},

1708:   {Slosar}, {Melchiorri}, {Smoot}, and {Zahn}}}]{CASLET08}

1709: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{{Calabrese}}},

1710:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Slosar}}},

1711:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Melchiorri}}},

1712:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~F.} \bibnamefont{{Smoot}}},

1713:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{{Zahn}}},

1714:   \bibinfo{journal}{ArXiv e-prints} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{803}}

1715:   (\bibinfo{year}{2008}), \eprint{0803.2309}.

1716: 

1717: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Albrecht} et~al.}(2006)}]{DETF06}

1718: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Albrecht}}}

1719:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints}

1720:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{astro-ph/0609591}.

1721: 

1722: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Hu} et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{{Hu},

1723:   {Holz}, and {Vale}}}]{HUHOVA07}

1724: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{{Hu}}},

1725:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.} \bibnamefont{{Holz}}},

1726:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Vale}}},

1727:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{76}},

1728:   \bibinfo{pages}{127301} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}{\natexlab{a}}),

1729:   \eprint{arXiv:0708.4391}.

1730: 

1731: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Silk}}(1968)}]{SILK68}

1732: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{{Silk}}},

1733:   \bibinfo{journal}{\apjl} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{151}},

1734:   \bibinfo{pages}{L19+} (\bibinfo{year}{1968}).

1735: 

1736: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Seljak} and {Zaldarriaga}}(2000)}]{SEZA95}

1737: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{{Seljak}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1738:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Zaldarriaga}}},

1739:   \bibinfo{journal}{\apj} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{538}}, \bibinfo{pages}{57}

1740:   (\bibinfo{year}{2000}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/9907254}.

1741: 

1742: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Vale} et~al.}(2004)\citenamefont{{Vale}, {Amblard},

1743:   and {White}}}]{VAAMWH04}

1744: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Vale}}},

1745:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Amblard}}},

1746:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{White}}},

1747:   \bibinfo{journal}{New Astronomy} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{10}},

1748:   \bibinfo{pages}{1} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0402004}.

1749: 

1750: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Holder} and {Kosowsky}}(2004)}]{HOKO04}

1751: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{{Holder}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1752:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Kosowsky}}},

1753:   \bibinfo{journal}{\apj} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{616}}, \bibinfo{pages}{8}

1754:   (\bibinfo{year}{2004}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0401519}.

1755: 

1756: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Hu}}(2001)}]{HU01b}

1757: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{{Hu}}},

1758:   \bibinfo{journal}{\apjl} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{557}}, \bibinfo{pages}{L79}

1759:   (\bibinfo{year}{2001}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0105424}.

1760: 

1761: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Hirata} and {Seljak}}(2003)}]{HISE03a}

1762: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Hirata}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1763:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{{Seljak}}},

1764:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{67}},

1765:   \bibinfo{pages}{043001} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}),

1766:   \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0209489}.

1767: 

1768: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Maturi} et~al.}(2005)\citenamefont{{Maturi},

1769:   {Bartelmann}, {Meneghetti}, and {Moscardini}}}]{MABAMEET05}

1770: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Maturi}}},

1771:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Bartelmann}}},

1772:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Meneghetti}}},

1773:   \bibnamefont{and}

1774:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{{Moscardini}}},

1775:   \bibinfo{journal}{\aap} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{436}}, \bibinfo{pages}{37}

1776:   (\bibinfo{year}{2005}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0408064}.

1777: 

1778: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Hu} et~al.}(2007{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{{Hu},

1779:   {DeDeo}, and {Vale}}}]{HUDEVA07}

1780: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{{Hu}}},

1781:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{DeDeo}}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1782:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Vale}}},

1783:   \bibinfo{journal}{New Journal of Physics} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{9}},

1784:   \bibinfo{pages}{441} (\bibinfo{year}{2007}{\natexlab{b}}),

1785:   \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0701276}.

1786: 

1787: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Tegmark} and et~al.}(2006)}]{TESTET06}

1788: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Tegmark}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1789:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{et~al.}}, \bibinfo{journal}{\prd}

1790:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{74}}, \bibinfo{pages}{123507}

1791:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0608632}.

1792: 

1793: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Spergel} and et~al.}(2007)}]{SPBEET07}

1794: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~N.} \bibnamefont{{Spergel}}}

1795:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{et~al.}},

1796:   \bibinfo{journal}{\apjs} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{170}}, \bibinfo{pages}{377}

1797:   (\bibinfo{year}{2007}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0603449}.

1798: 

1799: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Komatsu} and et~al.}(2008)}]{KODUET08}

1800: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{{Komatsu}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1801:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{et~al.}}, \bibinfo{journal}{ArXiv e-prints}

1802:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{803}} (\bibinfo{year}{2008}), \eprint{0803.0547}.

1803: 

1804: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Hu}}(2000)}]{HU00}

1805: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{{Hu}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{\prd}

1806:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}}, \bibinfo{pages}{043007}

1807:   (\bibinfo{year}{2000}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0001303}.

1808: 

1809: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Okamoto} and {Hu}}(2003)}]{OKHU03}

1810: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{{Okamoto}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1811:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{{Hu}}},

1812:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{67}},

1813:   \bibinfo{pages}{083002} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}),

1814:   \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0301031}.

1815: 

1816: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Challinor} and {Lewis}}(2005)}]{CHLE05}

1817: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Challinor}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1818:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Lewis}}},

1819:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{71}},

1820:   \bibinfo{pages}{103010} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}),

1821:   \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0502425}.

1822: 

1823: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Mandel} and {Zaldarriaga}}(2006)}]{MAZA06}

1824: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~S.} \bibnamefont{{Mandel}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1825:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Zaldarriaga}}},

1826:   \bibinfo{journal}{\apj} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{647}}, \bibinfo{pages}{719}

1827:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0512218}.

1828: 

1829: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Lewis} and {Challinor}}(2006)}]{LECH06}

1830: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Lewis}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1831:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Challinor}}},

1832:   \bibinfo{journal}{\physrep} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{429}},

1833:   \bibinfo{pages}{1} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0601594}.

1834: 

1835: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Knox}}(1995)}]{KNOX95}

1836: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{{Knox}}},

1837:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{52}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4307}

1838:   (\bibinfo{year}{1995}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/9504054}.

1839: 

1840: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Zahn} and {Zaldarriaga}}(2006)}]{ZAZA06}

1841: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{{Zahn}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1842:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Zaldarriaga}}},

1843:   \bibinfo{journal}{\apj} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{653}}, \bibinfo{pages}{922}

1844:   (\bibinfo{year}{2006}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0511547}.

1845: 

1846: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Babich}}(2005)}]{BABIC05}

1847: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{{Babich}}},

1848:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{72}},

1849:   \bibinfo{pages}{043003} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}),

1850:   \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0503375}.

1851: 

1852: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Navarro} et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{{Navarro},

1853:   {Frenk}, and {White}}}]{NFW97}

1854: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~F.} \bibnamefont{{Navarro}}},

1855:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~S.} \bibnamefont{{Frenk}}},

1856:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~D.~M.}

1857:   \bibnamefont{{White}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{\apj}

1858:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{490}}, \bibinfo{pages}{493} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}),

1859:   \eprint{astro-ph/9611107}.

1860: 

1861: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Bartelmann}}(1996)}]{BARTE96}

1862: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Bartelmann}}},

1863:   \bibinfo{journal}{\aap} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{313}}, \bibinfo{pages}{697}

1864:   (\bibinfo{year}{1996}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/9602053}.

1865: 

1866: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Wright} and {Brainerd}}(2000)}]{WRBR00}

1867: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~O.} \bibnamefont{{Wright}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1868:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~G.} \bibnamefont{{Brainerd}}},

1869:   \bibinfo{journal}{\apj} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{534}}, \bibinfo{pages}{34}

1870:   (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

1871: 

1872: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Seljak} and {Zaldarriaga}}(1996)}]{SEZA96}

1873: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{{Seljak}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1874:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Zaldarriaga}}},

1875:   \bibinfo{journal}{\apj} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{469}}, \bibinfo{pages}{437}

1876:   (\bibinfo{year}{1996}), \eprint{astro-ph/9603033}.

1877: 

1878: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Sunyaev} and {Zeldovich}}(1970)}]{SUZE70}

1879: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~A.} \bibnamefont{{Sunyaev}}}

1880:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~B.}

1881:   \bibnamefont{{Zeldovich}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Comments on Astrophysics and

1882:   Space Physics} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{2}}, \bibinfo{pages}{66}

1883:   (\bibinfo{year}{1970}).

1884: 

1885: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Sunyaev} and {Zeldovich}}(1972)}]{SUZE72}

1886: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~A.} \bibnamefont{{Sunyaev}}}

1887:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.~B.}

1888:   \bibnamefont{{Zeldovich}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Comments on Astrophysics and

1889:   Space Physics} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{4}}, \bibinfo{pages}{173}

1890:   (\bibinfo{year}{1972}).

1891: 

1892: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Dodelson}}(2004)}]{DODEL04}

1893: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{Dodelson}}},

1894:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}},

1895:   \bibinfo{pages}{023009} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}),

1896:   \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0402314}.

1897: 

1898: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Lewis} and {King}}(2006)}]{LEKI06}

1899: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Lewis}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1900:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{{King}}},

1901:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{73}},

1902:   \bibinfo{pages}{063006} (\bibinfo{year}{2006}),

1903:   \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0512104}.

1904: 

1905: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Birkinshaw}}(1999)}]{BIRKI99}

1906: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Birkinshaw}}},

1907:   \bibinfo{journal}{\physrep} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{310}},

1908:   \bibinfo{pages}{97} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/9808050}.

1909: 

1910: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Carlstrom} et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{{Carlstrom},

1911:   {Holder}, and {Reese}}}]{CAHORE02}

1912: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~E.} \bibnamefont{{Carlstrom}}},

1913:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~P.} \bibnamefont{{Holder}}},

1914:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~D.}

1915:   \bibnamefont{{Reese}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{\araa}

1916:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{40}}, \bibinfo{pages}{643} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}),

1917:   \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/0208192}.

1918: 

1919: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Seljak} and {Zaldarriaga}}(1997)}]{SEZA97}

1920: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{{Seljak}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1921:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Zaldarriaga}}},

1922:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prl} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{78}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2054}

1923:   (\bibinfo{year}{1997}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/9609169}.

1924: 

1925: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Kamionkowski}

1926:   et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{{Kamionkowski}, {Kosowsky}, and

1927:   {Stebbins}}}]{KAKOST97}

1928: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Kamionkowski}}},

1929:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Kosowsky}}},

1930:   \bibnamefont{and}

1931:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Stebbins}}},

1932:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prl} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{78}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2058}

1933:   (\bibinfo{year}{1997}), \eprint{arXiv:astro-ph/9609132}.

1934: 

1935: \end{thebibliography}

1936: 

1937: 

1938: \end{document}

1939: 

1940: