1: % $Id: comprehensive.tex,v 1.19 2008/08/25 15:39:40 garyb Exp $	

2: \documentclass[11pt,preprint,flushrt]{aastex}

3: %\documentclass{emulateapj}

4: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.8}

5: 

6: \def\eqq#1{Equation~(\ref{#1})}

7: \newcommand\etal{{\it et al.\/}}

8: \newcommand\eg{{\it e.g.\ }}

9: \newcommand\ie{{\it i.e.\ }}

10: 

11: \begin{document}

12: 

13: \slugcomment{CVS \$Revision: 1.19 $ $ \$Date: 2008/08/25 15:39:40 $ $}

14: 

15: \title{Comprehensive Two-Point Analyses of Weak Gravitational Lensing Surveys} 

16: \author{Gary M. Bernstein}

17: \affil{Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania,

18: Philadelphia, PA 19104}

19: \email{garyb@physics.upenn.edu}

20: 

21: \begin{abstract}

22: We present a framework for analyzing weak gravitational lensing survey

23: data, including lensing and source-density observables, plus spectroscopic

24: redshift calibration data.  All two-point observables are predicted in

25: terms of parameters of a perturbed Robertson-Walker metric, making

26: the framework independent of the models for gravity, dark energy, or

27: galaxy properties.  For Gaussian fluctuations the 2-point model determines the

28: survey likelihood function and allows Fisher-matrix forecasting.  The

29: framework 

30: includes nuisance terms for the major systematic errors: shear

31: measurement errors, magnification bias and redshift calibration

32: errors, intrinsic galaxy alignments, and inaccurate theoretical

33: predictions.   We propose flexible parameterizations of the many

34: nuisance parameters related to galaxy bias and intrinsic alignment.

35: For the first time we can integrate many different observables and

36: systematic errors into a single analysis.

37: As a first application of this framework, we demonstrate that:

38: uncertainties in power-spectrum theory cause very minor degradation to

39: cosmological information content; nearly all useful information

40: (excepting baryon oscillations) is

41: extracted with $\approx 3$ bins per decade of angular scale; and the rate

42: at which galaxy bias varies with redshift substantially influences the

43: strength of cosmological inference.  The framework will permit careful

44: study of the interplay between numerous observables, systematic

45: errors, and spectroscopic calibration data for large weak-lensing surveys.

46: 

47: \end{abstract}

48: 

49: \keywords{gravitational lensing; cosmological parameters; relativity}

50: 

51: \section{Introduction}

52: Weak gravitational lensing of background sources can produce

53: exceptionally strong constraints on cosmological parameters and tests

54: of General Relativity.  Initial analyses considered the 2-point

55: correlation function (or, equivalently, power spectrum) of the shear

56: pattern induced on a single population of background galaxies

57: \citep{Jordi, Kaiser92, Blandford91}.  A wealth of new statistics,

58: however, have been suggested as more powerful means to extract

59: information from weak lensing (WL): cross-power spectra of multiple

60: source populations with distinct redshift distributions

61: (a.k.a. ``tomography'') \citep{Hu}; the correlation of shear with

62: foreground galaxy clusters \citep{JainTaylor}, or more generally the

63: cross-correlation of lensing shear with the galaxy distribution

64: \citep{BJ04, Zhang}; joint analyses of density-density,

65: density-shear, and shear-shear correlations in an imaging survey

66: \citep{HJ04}; cross-correlation of magnification as well as shear

67: \citep{Jainmag}; use of the CMB \citep{HO02,HS03} or recombination-era 21~cm

68: signals \citep{MW07,Pen04,ZZ06} as source planes; cross-correlation of source

69: density or shear with a distinct spectroscopic galaxy survey

70: population \citep{Newman, SKZC}; and the use of 3-point statistics

71: \citep{TJ04} or statistics such as peak counts \citep{Hennawi,Wang,Laura} to

72: move beyond 2-point information.  Each of these potential innovations

73: has been individually analyzed and shown to improve cosmological

74: constraints.  The first goal of this paper is to consider the {\em

75:   simultaneous} use of all of these observable statistics: can we

76: forecast the cosmological information that they will yield

77: collectively in future surveys?  Can we start to develop a framework

78: in which all these signals could be analyzed simultaneously in a real

79: experiment? 

80: 

81: In parallel with the increasing variety of proposed WL signals, the

82: community has identified a series of potential astrophysical and

83: instrumental non-idealities in WL data which, if ignored, would lead

84: to substantial systematic errors in the inferred cosmology.  These

85: include: finite accuracy in our ability to predict the deflecting mass

86: power spectrum due to nonlinearities \citep{JS97} and baryonic physics

87: \citep{Zhan06, Jing}; intrinsic alignments (IA) between galaxy shapes

88: \citep{CroftMetzler} and between galaxy shapes and the local mass distribution

89: \citep{Hirata2} that are not induced by lensing; multiplicative

90: ``shear calibration'' errors in the derivation of lensing shear from

91: galaxy images \citep{Ishak04,HTBJ}; additive ``spurious shear'' due

92: to uncorrected PSF 

93: ellipticity or other imaging systematics \citep{HTBJ,AmaraRefregier}; 

94: and errors in

95: the assignment of redshifts to the source populations

96: \citep{MaHutererHu}.  The impact of these systematic-error sources on

97: cosmological inferences have been analyzed by different means, but a

98: second goal of this paper is to produce a comprehensive forecast that

99: considers the presence of them all simultaneously. 

100: 

101: Previous work has shown that these multiple sources of information and

102: systematic in WL surveys can interact in interesting ways.  For

103: example, in the presence of tomographic data, many systematics are

104: readily distinguishable from cosmological signals and can hence be

105: diagnosed and corrected internally to a survey; this approach is

106: called {\em self-calibration} \citep{HTBJ}.  It has also been shown

107: that combining galaxy density and lensing correlations can lead to

108: self-calibration of shear calibration errors \citep{BJ04} and the

109: uncertainties in galaxy biasing \citep{HJ04, Zhan06}.  Intrinsic

110: alignments of galaxies can be diagnosed and corrected if tomographic

111: information is available \citep{KingSchneider}, however this places

112: substantially greater demands on the precision and accuracy of

113: redshift assignment than would otherwise be needed \citep{BridleKing}.

114: These investigations raise important practical questions: will the

115: self-calibration techniques continue to succeed when we attempt to

116: simultaneously self-calibrate several different systematic errors?  Do

117: cross-correlation techniques reduce uncertainties in redshift

118: distributions to negligible levels, or is it necessary to make a

119: complete spectroscopic redshift survey of some size to measure

120: redshift distributions directly \citep{MaBernstein}?  This paper will

121: present a formalism through which all these questions can be answered,

122: but we defer to later papers the application of the framework to these

123: issues. 

124: 

125: A third goal of this work is to describe the constraints by WL in a

126: language that is not tied to a specific cosmological model.  Most

127: forecasts for WL survey constraints are done within the context of a

128: Universe that has homogeneous dark energy with equation of state

129: $w=w_0 + w_a(1-a)$.  Projecting the WL experiment onto this model

130: gives concrete predictions, but obscures what the WL is really

131: measuring.  So the analysis framework presented here will be {\em

132:   dark-energy agnostic}, meaning that no specific model is assumed.

133: We will be very explicit about the assumptions made in the analysis

134: and try to keep them to a minimum.  In fact a great strength of WL

135: experiments are their ability to test General Relativity itself, so we

136: seek an analysis method that is general enough to incorporate such

137: tests. Similar to the approach of \citet{KST}, our analysis results in

138: constraints on the distance and growth functions $D(z)$ and

139: $g_\phi(z)$, without reference to the particular dark-energy or

140: gravity modifications that might cause deviations from $\Lambda$CDM.

141: 

142: In the following section we describe a ``kitchen-sink'' formalism for

143: WL survey observables that allows the incorporation of all suggested

144: 2-point statistics and very general treatments of nearly all proposed

145: systematic errors.  In \S\ref{speclike} we give a likelihood function

146: and Fisher matrix for an unbiased spectroscopic redshift survey of

147: source galaxies.  Then we briefly describe a software implementation

148: of the lensing and spectroscopy likelihood calculations.

149: We describe our model for the evolution of the lensing-potential power

150: spectrum in \S\ref{powermodel}, and \S\ref{nuisance} we describe

151: generic models used for the nuisance functions required in the

152: lensing-survey analysis. In \S\ref{tuneup} we use the implementation

153: of these methods to investigate the proper choices for the bin sizes

154: and grid spacings needed to turn the lensing analysis into a tractable

155: finite-dimensional problem.  Further application of the framework to

156: survey forecasting will be done in future papers.

157: 

158: An earlier version of this WL analysis formalism was used to generate

159: forecasts for the Dark Energy Task Force \citep{DETF}, and is

160: described in an appendix to that report.  

161: 

162: \section{The Weak Lensing 2-Point Likelihood}

163: \subsection{Observables}

164: \label{observsec}

165: We make the assumption that {\em the

166:   Universe has only weak scalar

167:   perturbations to a homogeneous and isotropic 4-dimensional metric.}

168: In this case 

169: the metric can be 

170: written in the Newtonian gauge as a perturbed Robertson-Walker metric:

171: \begin{equation}

172: ds^2 = (1+2\Psi)dt^2 - a^2(t)(1+2\Phi)\left[d\chi^2 +

173:   \chi_0^2S_k^2(\chi/\chi_0)(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta d\varphi^2)\right]

174: \end{equation}

175: 

176: We assign all mass and sources in the Universe to 

177: a series of narrow spherical shells centered at redshifts

178: $a_i=(1+z_i)^{-1}$ for $i\in \{1,\ldots,N_z\}$.    

179: There is a comoving angular

180: diameter distance $D_i$ to each shell, and the comoving radial extent of

181: each shell is $\Delta\chi_i$.  Note that the Robertson-Walker metric

182: formula for angular-diameter distance is $D=\chi_0 S_k(\chi/\chi_0)$,

183: where $\chi_0$ is the comoving radius of curvature of the Universe.   

184: For small values of the curvature $\omega_k\equiv -k/\chi^2_0$ 

185: we have 

186: \begin{equation}

187: \Delta\chi_i \approx \Delta D (1-\omega_k D_i^2/2)

188: = { D_{i+1} - D_{i-1} \over 2} (1-\omega_k D_i^2/2).

189: \end{equation}

190: The Robertson-Walker metric also requires $\Delta\chi_i = \Delta z_i /

191: h(z_i) = \Delta a_i / a_i^2 h(a_i)$.  In this paper the Hubble

192: parameter will be written as $H(z)=h(z)H_{100}$, $H_{100}=100\,{\rm

193:   km}\,{\rm s}^{-1}\,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$, and all distances will be in

194: units of $c/H_{100}=2998$~Mpc. 

195: 

196: We assume that the photon sources in a survey will be

197: divided into a series of {\em sets} $\alpha\in\{1,2,\ldots, N_s\}$.

198: Note the use of latin

199: indices for redshift shells, greek for source sets.

200: We follow \citet{HJ04} by assigning

201: each source set up to two observables: first its sky-plane density

202: fluctuations $g_\alpha(\theta,\varphi)$, and second a lensing convergence

203: $\kappa_\alpha(\theta,\varphi)$.  The convergence $\kappa$ might be

204: inferred from the shear or flexion \citep{BaconFlex} of galaxies, by a

205: quadratic estimator on the 

206: CMB or 21-cm radiation fluctuations, or by any other observable except the

207: source density.  The sources can be assigned to sets by photometric or

208: spectroscopic redshift, or even cruder color criteria

209: \citep{ConnollyJain}, but there could be other criteria such as galaxy

210: type, or perhaps observation by different instruments.  We demand 

211: only that the criteria for division of the sources be spatially

212: homogeneous, and that the division be invariant under application of

213: gravitational lensing distortion.  For notational convenience we

214: assign each set a nominal redshift $z_\alpha$, but a set can span a

215: broad redshift range.  If the sources are discrete objects such as

216: galaxies, then 

217: the mean density on the sky of members of each set are denoted

218: $n_\alpha$.

219: 

220: A source in set $\alpha$ has a probability $p_{\alpha i}$ of lying on

221: redshift shell $i$.   The collection of galaxies in set $\alpha$ on

222: shell $i$ will be called the {\em subset} $\alpha i$.  The survey is

223: assumed to tell us only which {\em set} any individual galaxy belongs to,

224: but not which {\em subset.}  The $p_{\alpha i}$ are parameters which

225: must be constrained by the lensing survey data or by additional  

226: observations, {\it e.g.} a spectroscopic redshift survey.  

227: 

228: When the lensing sources are drawn from a spectroscopic survey (or

229: when the source is the CMB), then the redshift

230: probability is known {\it a priori}, and in particular the sets are

231: probably divided by redshift so that $p_{\alpha i}$ is essentially the

232: identity matrix.  The formalism can obviously accommodate the

233: simultaneous analysis of WL samples with varying modes of redshift

234: assignment. 

235: 

236: Both the source density fluctuation $g_\alpha$ and convergence $\kappa_\alpha$

237: have a component due to

238: intrinsic fluctuations plus a component due to gravitational lensing.

239: Both are also measured as weighted sums over their respective subsets.

240: We have 

241: \begin{eqnarray}

242: \label{density1}

243: 1+g_\alpha(\theta,\varphi) & = & \sum_i p_{\alpha i}\left[1+g^{\rm

244:     int}_{\alpha i}(\theta,\varphi)\right]

245:  \left[1 + q_{\alpha i} \kappa^{\rm lens}_i(\theta,\varphi)\right] \\

246: \kappa_\alpha(\theta,\varphi) & = & \sum_i p_{\alpha i}\left[\kappa^{\rm int}_{\alpha i}(\theta,\varphi) + 

247: (1+f_{\alpha i}) \kappa^{\rm lens}_i(\theta,\varphi)\right].

248: \end{eqnarray}

249: Here we have assigned each subset a {\em magnification bias factor}

250: $q_{\alpha i}$ and a {\em shear calibration factor} $f_{\alpha i}$.

251: In a simple flux-limited selection, the magnification bias factor will be

252: determined by the logarithmic slope of the counts vs flux, and is typically of

253: order unity.  The shear calibration factor allows for the possibility

254: that the inferred lensing convergence is mis-measured by some factor

255: $1+f_{\alpha i}$ due to multiplicative errors in the lensing

256: methodology, \eg as investigated by \citet{STEP1}.

257: 

258: In the limit $g^{\rm int}\ll 1$ and $\kappa^{\rm lens}\ll 1$,

259: we can drop the second-order term in Equation~\ref{density1} and write

260: \begin{eqnarray}

261: \label{density2}

262: g_\alpha & = & \sum_i p_{\alpha i}\left[g^{\rm int}_{\alpha i} +

263: q_{\alpha i} \kappa^{\rm lens}_i\right] \\

264: \label{kappa2}

265: \kappa_\alpha & = & \sum_i p_{\alpha i}\left[\kappa^{\rm int}_{\alpha i} + 

266: (1+f_{\alpha i}) \kappa^{\rm lens}_i\right].

267: \end{eqnarray}

268: In this case the equations are linear in all the angular functions $g$

269: and $\kappa$, so we can decompose them into spherical harmonic

270: coefficient $g_{\alpha \ell m}$, $\kappa^{\rm lens}_{i\ell m}$,

271: etc, and Equations~(\ref{density2}) and (\ref{kappa2}) hold

272: independently for every harmonic $\ell m$.  We will henceforth assume

273: that the spherical-harmonic decomposition has been executed for all

274: the angular functions $g$, $\kappa$, and suppress the $\ell m$

275: indices for brevity.

276: 

277: We note that while $\kappa^{\rm lens}\ll 1$ is a good approximation

278: over most of the sky, $g^{\rm int}\ll1$ is a poor approximation for

279: thin density slices on smaller angular scales.  We will forge ahead

280: nonetheless with the assumption that {\em lensing magnification simply

281:   adds to the intrinsic density fluctuations}, recognizing that a real

282: analysis of data 

283: with magnification bias may require inclusion of the nonlinear

284: coupling between spherical harmonics that is induced by magnification

285: bias on highly structured density fields. 

286: 

287: The lensing convergence is determined entirely by the metric if we

288: make the assumption that light rays are following its null geodesics.

289: The paths of null geodesics are determined by the {\em lensing

290:   potential}

291: \begin{equation}

292: \phi \equiv {1 \over 2}(\Psi-\Phi).

293: \end{equation}

294: For each of our redshift shells we define a projected lensing

295: potential via

296: \begin{equation}

297: \psi_i \equiv 2 \nabla^2_\theta \int_{\Delta\chi} \phi a\, d\chi,

298: \label{lenspsi}

299: \end{equation}

300: where the derivatives are taken with respect to angles on the sky.  We

301: will generally assume that $\psi$, like the observables, has been

302: decomposed into spherical harmonics, and we will take the flat-sky

303: approximation.

304: 

305: With the definition (\ref{lenspsi}), and the adoption of the

306: weak-lensing limit and Born approximation, the lensing convergence is

307: \begin{eqnarray}

308: \label{lenslaw}

309: \kappa^{\rm lens}_i 

310: & = & \sum_j A_{ij} {\psi_j

311:   \over 2a_jD_j}, \\

312: \label{lenslaw2}

313: A_{ij} & \equiv & 

314: \left\{

315: \begin{array}{cl}

316: {D_{ij} \over D_i} \approx (1-D_j / D_i) (1-\omega_k

317: D_i D_j / 2) & z_i>z_j, \\

318: 0 & z_i\le z_j.

319: \end{array}

320: \right.

321: \end{eqnarray}

322: $D_{ij}$ is the comoving angular diameter distance to $z_i$ as viewed

323: from $z_j$.

324: In summary, the observables from the survey are, for each spherical harmonic:

325: \begin{eqnarray}

326: \label{observables}

327: g_\alpha & = & \sum_ip_{\alpha i}

328: \left[ q_{\alpha i} \sum_j A_{ij} {\psi_j \over 2a_j D_j}

329:  + g^{\rm int}_{\alpha i } \right] \\

330: \nonumber

331: \kappa_\alpha & = & \sum_ip_{\alpha i}

332: \left[ (1+f_{\alpha i}) \sum_j A_{ij} {\psi_j \over 2 a_j D_j}

333:  + \kappa^{\rm int}_{\alpha i } \right].

334: \end{eqnarray}

335: We reiterate that these equations depend only upon the assumption of

336: a Robertson-Walker metric with scalar perturbations,

337: plus the approximation that magnification bias and

338: intrinsic density fluctuations are additive.

339: 

340: The equations for the two observables are symmetric under the

341: interchange of $g\leftrightarrow \kappa$ and

342: $q\leftrightarrow(1+f)$.  Since $q\sim 1+f$, the lensing effects are

343: similar.  However the intrinsic density fluctuations $g^{\rm int}$ are

344: $\approx300\times$ stronger than $\kappa^{\rm int}$, breaking the

345: symmetry.  Density-field observations are dominated by the intrinsic

346: signal while convergence (shear) observations are dominated by lensing

347: effects.

348: 

349: \subsection{Degeneracies}

350: Equations (\ref{lenslaw})--(\ref{observables}) reveal a family of

351: degeneracies present in lensing observations, as described in

352: \citet{curvature}.  The transformations

353: \begin{eqnarray}

354: D_j & \rightarrow & D_j(1 + \alpha_0 + \alpha_1D_j + \alpha_2D_j^2) \nonumber

355: \\

356: \psi_i & \rightarrow & \psi_i(1 + \alpha_0 + 2\alpha_1D_j +

357: 2\alpha_2D_j^2) 

358: \label{degen} \\

359: \omega_k & \rightarrow & \omega_k + 2\alpha_2 \nonumber

360: \end{eqnarray}

361: leave the observables unchanged, to first order in $\{\alpha_0,

362: \alpha_1D, \alpha_2D^2, \omega_kD^2\}$. It will hence be impossible

363: for lensing$+$density surveys to constrain $\omega_k$ or any quadratic

364: (in $D$) deviations to $\ln D$, unless there are prior constraints on

365: these variables or on $\psi, g^{\rm int},$ or $\kappa^{\rm int}$.

366: Constraint on these three degeneracies is unlikely to arise from

367: models of intrinsic clustering or alignment, since it is unlikely that

368: {\it a priori} models of the redshift dependence of galaxy bias could

369: reach high precision.  We hence expect that these degeneracies are

370: going to be broken by theoretical models of the potential fluctuation

371: power spectrum, or by other distance indicators such as supernovae or BAO.

372: 

373: \subsection{Limber Approximation}

374: To forecast the constraints on the parameters of this model, we

375: require a likelihood expression for the observables.  The two

376: fundamental assumptions we make are:

377: \begin{enumerate}

378: \item The distributions of the lensing potential, intrinsic galaxy density

379:   fluctuations, and 

380:   intrinsic shape correlations $\psi_i, g^{\rm int}_{\alpha i},$ and

381:   $\kappa^{\rm int}_{\alpha i}$ are described by a multivariate

382:   Gaussian with zero mean.

383: \item The Limber approximation is valid and there is no correlation

384:   between these variables on distinct redshift shells or between

385:   different spherical harmonics:

386: \begin{eqnarray}

387: \nonumber

388: \langle X_{i\ell m} Y_{j\ell^\prime m^\prime} \rangle & = & \delta_{ij}

389: \delta_{\ell \ell^\prime}

390: \delta_{m m^\prime}

391: \left(D_i^2\Delta\chi_i\right)^{-1} P_i^{XY}(\ell/D_i) \\

392: \label{limber}

393: \langle X_{i\ell m} \psi_{j\ell^\prime m^\prime} \rangle & = & -2\delta_{ij}

394: \delta_{\ell \ell^\prime}

395: \delta_{m m^\prime}

396: a_i\left(\ell/D_i\right)^2 P_i^{X\phi}(\ell/D_i) \\

397: \nonumber

398: \langle \psi_{i\ell m} \psi_{j\ell^\prime m^\prime} \rangle & = & \delta_{ij}

399: \delta_{\ell \ell^\prime}

400: \delta_{m m^\prime}

401: 4a_i^2D_i^2\Delta\chi_i\left(\ell/D_i\right)^4 P_i^{\phi\phi}(\ell/D_i) 

402: \end{eqnarray}

403: where $X,Y \in \{g^{\rm int},\kappa^{\rm int}\}$, and $P_i^{XY}(k)$ is the 3-d

404: cross-spectrum of variables $X$ and $Y$ at epoch $a_i$.

405: \end{enumerate}

406: The first assumption insures that the likelihood of an observation is fully

407: specified by the expected covariance matrix of the observables.  The second

408: assumption implies that this covariance matrix can be expressed in

409: terms of the 3-d cross-power spectra of the

410: lensing potential, subset densities, and subset intrinsic correlations

411: $\{\phi_i,g^{\rm int}_{\alpha i},\kappa^{\rm int}_{\alpha i}\}$ at

412: each redshift shell. 

413: 

414: \subsection{Biases and Correlations}

415: A typical convention is to express the galaxy density power

416: $P^{gg}$ as a bias-scaled version of the mass spectrum $P^m$, plus a Poisson

417: shot-noise contribution, and then describing the mass-galaxy

418: covariance $P^{mg}$ with a correlation coefficient: 

419: \begin{eqnarray}

420: P^{gg} & = & (b^g)^2 P^m + {1 \over

421:   \rho} \\

422: P^{mg} & = & b^g r^g P^m.

423: \end{eqnarray}

424: The comoving volume number density $\rho$ of the sources determines

425: the shot noise for a Poisson process, but

426: there is no guarantee that the galaxies are distributed in the mass

427: distribution by a Poisson process.  Even when the galaxies do not have

428: Poissonian shot noise, we can still usually write the power in this

429: way for some bias parameter $b$; we just might keep in mind that

430: $r^g>1$ is formally allowed if the sources are not Poisson-distributed.

431: 

432: Most generally, both the

433: bias and correlation coefficients are different for each source {\em

434:   subset} as well as being functions of comoving wavenumber $k$.  Each

435: set $\alpha$ has a nominal redshift $z_\alpha$, and each subset has a

436: redshift deviation $\Delta z_{\alpha i}=z_i-z_\alpha$. Galaxies with bad

437: photo-z errors could easily have different bias from those with good

438: photo-z's; for example, highly-biased early types tend to have better

439: photo-z's.  So our analysis methods should allow for this

440: complication. 

441: 

442: We will adopt the bias/correlation notation for the intrinsic galaxy

443: density fluctuations {\em and} for the intrinsic convergence

444: $\kappa^{\rm int}$, except that we will parameterize the bias and

445: covariance with respect to the lensing potential rather than mass

446: distribution.  If $P^{gg}_{i\alpha\beta}$ is the 3d cross-power

447: between density fluctuations in subsets $\alpha i$ and $\beta i$ at

448: wavenumber $k$, and we

449: write $P^\phi_i$ for the lensing-potential 3d power spectrum, then we

450: express: 

451: \begin{eqnarray}

452: \nonumber

453: P^{gg}_{i\alpha\beta} & = &

454: b^g_{\alpha i}b^g_{\beta i}r^{gg}_{\alpha\beta i} 

455: \left({2 a_i \over 3 \omega_m}\right)^2 k^4P_i^\phi  +

456: {\delta_{\alpha\beta} \over \rho_{\alpha i}} \\

457: \label{pkk}

458: P^{\kappa\kappa}_{i\alpha\beta} & = &

459: b^\kappa_{\alpha i}b^\kappa_{\beta i}r^{\kappa\kappa}_{\alpha\beta i} 

460: \left({2 a_i \over 3 \omega_m}\right)^2 k^4P_i^\phi  +

461: {\delta_{\alpha\beta}\sigma^2_\gamma \over \rho_{\alpha i}} \\

462: \nonumber

463: P^{g\kappa}_{i\alpha\beta} & = &

464: b^g_{\alpha i}b^\kappa_{\beta i}r^{g\kappa}_{\alpha\beta i} 

465: \left({2 a_i \over 3 \omega_m}\right)^2 k^4P_i^\phi  

466: \end{eqnarray}

467: where $\rho_{\alpha i}$ is a comoving volume density of the galaxy subset

468: in the shell and $\sigma_\gamma$ is a measure of the shear noise per

469: galaxy.  These describe the normal ``shape noise'' term in the shear

470: power spectrum and the shot noise in the density field.  If flexions

471: or other observables are used to infer the convergence, then the

472: shape noise term may have a different form.

473: 

474: And if $P^{g\phi}_{i\alpha}$ is the cross-power between the density of

475: subset $i\alpha$ and lensing potential, we express

476: \begin{eqnarray}

477: \label{pgphi}

478: P^{g\phi}_{i\alpha} & = &

479: -b^g_{\alpha i}r^g_{\alpha i} 

480: {2 a_i \over 3 \omega_m} k^2P_i^\phi \\

481: \nonumber

482: P^{\kappa\phi}_{i\alpha} & = &

483: -b^\kappa_{\alpha i}r^\kappa_{\alpha i} 

484: {2 a_i \over 3 \omega_m} k^2P_i^\phi. 

485: \end{eqnarray}

486: Note that specifying the bias and correlation $b^\kappa$ and $r^\kappa$

487: of the intrinsic convergence with the lensing potential is equivalent

488: to giving the ``GI'' and

489: ``II'' intrinsic-alignment information, in the notation of \citet{Hirata2}.

490: 

491: The lensing power $P^\phi$ is a function of $z$ and $k$.  The biases

492: and correlation coefficients $b^\kappa_{\alpha i}, r^\kappa_{\alpha i},

493: b^g_{\alpha i},$ and $r^g_{\alpha i}$ are functions

494: of $k$, the nominal redshift $z_\alpha$ of the source set, and $\Delta

495: z_{\alpha i}$, the difference between the subset redshift and the

496: nominal set redshift.

497: 

498: Most complicated are the cross-correlation coefficients such as

499: $r^{gg}_{\alpha\beta i}$, which are, most generally, functions of $k$,

500: $z_i$, 

501: and {\em both} redshift errors $\Delta z_{\alpha i}$ and $\Delta

502: z_{\beta i}$. In order for the covariance matrix of all these fields

503: to be symmetric, we require

504: $r^{gg}_{\alpha\alpha i}=r^{\kappa\kappa}_{\alpha\alpha i}=1$ and

505: the symmetry $r^{XY}_{\alpha\beta i}=r^{YX}_{\beta\alpha i}.$  

506: Otherwise the correlation coefficients are free to vary, subject to

507: the constraint that the overall correlation matrix of the potential and

508: all fluctuations must remain non-negative.

509: 

510: This parameterization of the fluctuations of the potential and the

511: intrinsic fluctuations is completely general---we have not introduced

512: any further assumptions into the model as long as all the $b$'s and

513: $r$'s and $P^\phi$'s are free parameters (non-negative in the last

514: case).

515: 

516: \subsection{The Two-Point Statistics}

517: Combining the formula for observables (\ref{observables}), the Limber formulae

518: (\ref{limber}), and the bias notation (\ref{pkk}), (\ref{pgphi}),

519: the covariance matrix for the observables $\{g_\alpha,\kappa_\alpha\}$

520: at a given multipole can be broken into three submatrices: 

521: \begin{eqnarray}

522: \label{gg1}

523: C^{gg}_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \langle g_\alpha g_\beta \rangle 

524:  & = & \sum_{ij} 

525: p_{\alpha i}p_{\beta j} \left\{

526:  \rule[-3ex]{0ex}{6ex} %% This is to match bracket size

527: q_{\alpha i}q_{\beta j}\sum_n

528: A_{in}A_{jn}\Delta\chi_n k_n^4 P^\phi_n(k_n)

529: \right. \\

530: \nonumber

531:  & & \mbox{} + q_{\alpha i} A_{ij} { 2a_j  \over 3 \omega_m} D_j^{-1}

532: b^g_{\beta j}r^g_{\beta j}k_j^4 P^\phi(k_j) \\ \nonumber

533:  & &  \mbox{} + q_{\beta j} A_{ji} { 2a_i \over 3 \omega_m} D_i^{-1}

534: b^g_{\alpha i}r^g_{\alpha i}k_i^4 P^\phi(k_i) \\ \nonumber

535:  & &  \left. \mbox{} + \delta_{ij} \left({2 a_i \over 3 \omega_m}\right)^2

536: D_i^{-2}\Delta\chi_i^{-1}

537: b^g_{\alpha i}b^g_{\beta i}r^{gg}_{\alpha \beta i}k_i^4

538: P^\phi(k_i) 

539: \rule[-3ex]{0ex}{6ex} \right\} + {\delta_{\alpha\beta}\over n_\alpha}\\ 

540: \label{kg1}

541: C^{\kappa g}_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \langle \kappa_\alpha g_\beta \rangle 

542:  & = & \sum_{ij} 

543: p_{\alpha i}p_{\beta j} \left\{

544:  \rule[-3ex]{0ex}{6ex} %% This is to match bracket size

545: (1+f_{\alpha i})q_{\beta j}\sum_n

546: A_{in}A_{jn}\Delta\chi_n k_n^4 P^\phi_n(k_n)

547: \right. \\

548: \nonumber

549:  & & \mbox{} + (1+f_{\alpha i}) A_{ij} { 2a_j  \over 3 \omega_m} D_j^{-1}

550: b^g_{\beta j}r^g_{\beta j}k_j^4 P^\phi(k_j) \\ \nonumber

551:  & &  \mbox{} + q_{\beta j} A_{ji} { 2a_i \over 3 \omega_m} D_i^{-1}

552: b^\kappa_{\alpha i}r^\kappa_{\alpha i}k_i^4 P^\phi(k_i) \\ \nonumber

553:  & &  \left. \mbox{} + \delta_{ij} \left({2 a_i \over 3 \omega_m}\right)^2

554: D_i^{-2}\Delta\chi_i^{-1}

555: b^\kappa_{\alpha i}b^g_{\beta i}r^{\kappa g}_{\alpha \beta i}k_i^4

556: P^\phi(k_i) 

557: \rule[-3ex]{0ex}{6ex} \right\} + {\delta_{\alpha\beta}\over n_\alpha}\\ 

558: \label{kk1}

559: C^{\kappa\kappa}_{\alpha\beta} \equiv \langle \kappa_\alpha \kappa_\beta \rangle 

560:  & = & \sum_{ij} 

561: p_{\alpha i}p_{\beta j} \left\{

562:  \rule[-3ex]{0ex}{6ex} %% This is to match bracket size

563: (1+f_{\alpha i})(1+f_{\beta j})\sum_n

564: A_{in}A_{jn}\Delta\chi_n k_n^4 P^\phi_n(k_n)

565: \right. \\

566: \nonumber

567:  & & \mbox{} + (1+f_{\alpha i}) A_{ij} { 2a_j  \over 3 \omega_m} D_j^{-1}

568: b^\kappa_{\beta j}r^\kappa_{\beta j}k_j^4 P^\phi(k_j) \\ \nonumber

569:  & &  \mbox{} + (1+f_{\beta j}) A_{ji} { 2a_i \over 3 \omega_m} D_i^{-1}

570: b^\kappa_{\alpha i}r^\kappa_{\alpha i}k_i^4 P^\phi(k_i) \\ \nonumber

571:  & &  \left. \mbox{} + \delta_{ij} \left({2 a_i \over 3 \omega_m}\right)^2

572: D_i^{-2}\Delta\chi_i^{-1}

573: b^\kappa_{\alpha i}b^\kappa_{\beta i}r^{\kappa\kappa}_{\alpha \beta i}k_i^4

574: P^\phi(k_i) 

575: \rule[-3ex]{0ex}{6ex} \right\} +

576: \delta_{\alpha\beta}\left({\sigma^2_\gamma\over n}\right)_\alpha

577: \end{eqnarray}

578: The comoving wavevector is $k_i=\ell/D_i$.

579: In each equation, note that only one of the last three terms is

580: non-zero, depending on whether $j<i$, $j>i$, or $j=i$, respectively.

581: For the shear-shear correlation $C^{\kappa\kappa}$,

582: the $i=j$ term is recognizable as the ``II''

583: intrinsic-correlation effect of \citet{Hirata2}, while the $i<j$

584: and $j>i$ terms are their ``GI'' effect.  

585: 

586: Note that

587: the last term in the density-shear expression $C^{\kappa g}$

588: is an additional intrinsic-correlation term, between the galaxy

589: density and the intrinsic shapes, which is distinct from the

590: covariance between the lensing potential and shear.  This galaxy-shear

591: correlation has been constrained in the context of systematic errors

592: to ``galaxy-galaxy'' lensing, \eg

593: \citet{BernsteinNorberg,FLMvdBYJPM,Hetal04}. 

594: 

595: Examining the density-density correlation $C^{gg}$ we find the final

596: term has the normal expected form, but the first three terms describe

597: correlations induced by lensing magnification. 

598: 

599: Finally we note that the covariance matrix manifests the same

600: symmetries for $g\leftrightarrow\kappa$ that were discussed at the end

601: of \S\ref{observsec}.

602: 

603: \subsection{Likelihood and Fisher matrix}

604: Under our Gaussian assumption, the likelihood functions for the

605: observables are independent at each multipole $\ell m$.  We define a

606: data vector

607: ${\bf d}_{\ell m}$ to be the union of the $g_\alpha$ and

608: $\kappa_\alpha$ observables at each multipole, and ${\bf C}_{\ell}$ to

609: be the covariance matrix derived above.  Under our Gaussian

610: assumption, the total likelihood for the survey is

611: \begin{equation}

612: \label{likelihood}

613: -2\ln L = \sum_{\ell m} \left[ {\bf d}_{\ell m}^T {\bf C}_\ell^{-1} {\bf

614:   d}_{\ell m} + \ln | {\bf C}_\ell | \right].

615: \end{equation}

616: Forecasts of survey performance are made using the Fisher matrix.  The

617: usual formula for zero-mean Gaussian distributions applies

618: \citep{TTH97}.  We reduce the mode sum to a series of $N_\ell$ bins centered

619: on multipoles $\ell_i$, then the Fisher matrix element for parameters

620: $p$ and $q$ is

621: \begin{equation}

622: \label{fisher}

623: F_{pq} = \sum_{i=1}^{N_\ell} {(2\ell_i+1)\Delta \ell_i\,f_{\rm

624:     sky}\over 2}\,

625: {\rm Tr} \left[{\bf C}^{-1}_{\ell_i} {\partial {\bf C}_{\ell_i} \over \partial p}

626: {\bf C}^{-1}_{\ell_i} {\partial {\bf C}_{\ell_i} \over \partial q}\right].

627: \end{equation}

628: Examination of Equations~(\ref{gg1})--(\ref{kk1}) shows that 

629: all derivatives of ${\bf C}$ with respect to parameters are very simple.

630: The calculation of the Fisher matrix is reduced to rapid linear

631: algebra, significantly accelerated by exploiting the very sparse

632: nature of most of the derivative matrices.

633: 

634: We have thus succeeded in producing a likelihood function for the most

635: general joint lensing$+$density survey, for the case of Gaussian

636: likelihoods limited to 2-point statistics.  Given a likelihood we can

637: of course form a Fisher matrix for forecasting, or we can execute a

638: maximum-likelihood analysis of real data.  Since this likelihood

639: function makes no mention of a particular dark-energy theory, we see

640: that the parameterization chosen here permits a highly flexible

641: analysis.  Indeed no theory of gravity or initial conditions of the

642: Universe have been assumed either, just the existence of a Newtonian

643: gauge metric on a RW background cosmology.  The lensing-potential

644: power spectrum $P^\phi(k,z)$ appears as a series of free parameters,

645: as do the bias and correlation coefficients of the galaxy density and

646: intrinsic alignments.

647: 

648: We have variables

649: that describe, in the most general possible fashion, the important

650: systematic errors, excepting additive shear contamination:  

651: \begin{enumerate}

652: \item Uncertainty in power-spectrum theory will be expressed through

653:   prior distributions on the $P^\phi_i$ parameters. 

654: \item Shear calibration errors arises through finite prior uncertainty

655:   on the $f_{\alpha i}$. 

656: \item Magnification-bias calibration errors arises through finite prior

657:   uncertainty on the $q_{\alpha i}$. 

658: \item Intrinsic alignments are embodied through the $b^\kappa$,

659:   $r^\kappa$, $r^{g\kappa}$, and $r^{\kappa\kappa}$ coefficients. 

660: \item Redshift-distribution errors are manifested through the

661:   uncertainties in the $p_{\alpha i}$ probabilities. 

662: \end{enumerate}

663: 

664: The cost of this great generality is that there are a huge number of

665: nuisance parameters, enough to make us doubt whether the

666: maximum-likelihood analysis---or even the Fisher-matrix analysis!---is

667: feasible.  

668: 

669: \subsection{Parameter Inventory}

670: The WL survey covariance matrix has a

671: horrendously large number of parameters.  The cosmological treasure

672: lies in these:

673: \begin{itemize}

674: \item The 2 global cosmological parameters $\omega_m$ and $\omega_k$.

675: \item The distances $D_i$, which encode the expansion history of the

676:   Universe in $N_z$ steps.  The $\Delta\chi_i$ and the Hubble

677:   parameters  $h(z_i)$ can be expressed in terms of these and $\omega_k$.

678: \item The metric-potential power spectra $P_i^\phi$, which describe

679:   the growth of 

680:   dark-matter structure.  For $N_\ell$ bins in $\ell$, there will be

681:   $N_\ell N_z$ distinct matter-power parameters in the model.  A

682:   prediction for the growth of potential fluctuations will typically be an

683:   important element of any cosmological scenario under test, so the

684:   $P^\phi_i$ can be replaced as parameters by a much smaller number of

685:   cosmological parameters.

686: \end{itemize}

687: There are then a large number of nuisance parameters.  If there are

688: $N_{ss}$ non-empty source subsets, the nuisance parameters are 

689: \begin{itemize}

690: \item The redshift-distribution parameters $p_{\alpha i}$, with

691:   $N_{ss}-N_s$ degrees of freedom.

692: \item The shear-calibration errors $f_{\alpha i}$, another $N_{ss}$

693:   degrees of freedom.

694: \item The magnification-bias coefficients $q_{\alpha i}$, another $N_{ss}$

695:   degrees of freedom.

696: \item The source-density biases $b^g_{\alpha i}$ and correlation coefficients

697:   $r^g_{\alpha i}$ with respect to $\phi$, which may be scale-dependent,

698:   yielding $2N_\ell N_{ss}$ degrees of freedom.

699: \item The intrinsic-alignment power and correlations with the mass,

700:   $b^\kappa_{\alpha i}$ and $r^\kappa_{\alpha i}$, another $2N_\ell

701:   N_{ss}$ parameters. 

702: \item The correlation coefficients $r^{gg}_{\alpha\beta i}$, 

703: $r^{\kappa g}_{\alpha\beta i}$, and $r^{\kappa\kappa}_{\alpha\beta

704:   i}$, which also may be scale-dependent.  The number of such

705: parameters is $\approx 3N_\ell N_{ss}^2/2N_z$.

706: \end{itemize}

707: The number of nuisance parameters for a non-parametric analysis is

708: enormous.  If we are analyzing a photo-z survey with typical errors

709: $\Delta z\approx 0.05(1+z)$, then we would typically want to space the

710: redshift shells logarithmically in $1+z$, with $\Delta\ln a \approx

711: 0.02$ so that we resolve the redshift distribution of each photo-z

712: bin.  In this case, $N_z\approx100$ bins span $0<z<5$, and

713: we will require $N_{ss}\gtrsim 1000$ if we track all subsets out to

714: $\pm3\sigma$ of the photo-z distribution. 

715: 

716: To reduce the dimensionality of the likelihood function, we can

717: replace many of the discrete nuisance parameters by the values of

718: parameterized functions for the nuisance variables.

719: Table~\ref{nuisancefunc} lists the variables in the WL likelihood

720: function that can be replaced by parametric functions. The nuisance

721: variables are functions of: wavevector $k$; redshift $z$; and redshift

722: difference $\Delta z = z_\alpha - z_i$ between the nominal and true

723: redshifts of a source subset.

724: In later sections we will describe the parametric functions

725: that we have implemented to reduce the number

726: of degrees of freedom in the model.  Each time we introduce a

727: parametric function, we need to choose a fiducial parameter set and a

728: prior distribution for the parameters.

729: 

730: \begin{deluxetable}{lcc}

731: \tablewidth{0pt}

732: \tablecaption{Nuisance variables that can be replaced by functions}

733: \tablehead{

734: \colhead{Description} &

735: \colhead{Discrete variables} &

736: \colhead{Parametric function}

737: }

738: \startdata

739: Lensing potential power spectrum & $P^\phi_i$ & $P^\phi(k,z)$ \\

740: Shear calibration error & $f_{\alpha i}$ & $f(z, \Delta z)$ \\

741: Magnification bias & $q_{\alpha i}$ & $q(z, \Delta z)$ \\

742: Redshift distribution & $p_{\alpha i}$ & $p(z, \Delta z)$ \\

743: Source density bias & $ b^g_{\alpha i}$ & $b^g(k, z, \Delta z)$ \\

744: Density-mass correlation & $ r^g_{\alpha i}$ & $r^g(k, z, \Delta z)$ \\

745: Intrinsic alignment bias & $ b^\kappa_{\alpha i}$ & $b^\kappa(k, z, \Delta z)$ \\

746: IA-density correlation & $ r^\kappa_{\alpha i}$ & $r^\kappa(k, z, \Delta z)$ \\

747: Density-density x-correlation & $r^{gg}_{\alpha\beta i}$ &

748: $r^{gg}(k,z,\Delta z_\alpha, \Delta z_\beta)$ \\

749: Density-IA x-correlation & $r^{g\kappa}_{\alpha\beta i}$ &

750: $r^{g\kappa}(k,z,\Delta z_\alpha, \Delta z_\beta)$ \\

751: IA-IA x-correlation & $r^{\kappa\kappa}_{\alpha\beta i}$ &

752: $r^{\kappa\kappa}(k,z,\Delta z_\alpha, \Delta z_\beta)$

753: \enddata

754: \label{nuisancefunc}

755: \end{deluxetable}

756: 

757: \section{Spectroscopic Redshift Likelihood}

758: \label{speclike}

759: If we draw a single

760: member from source set $\alpha$ and measure its spectroscopic redshift in

761: an unbiased 

762: fashion, then by definition the likelihood of the spectroscopic

763: redshift being on shell $i$ is $p_{\alpha i}.$  If we measure

764: $N_\alpha^{\rm spec}$ redshifts, and find that $N^{\rm spec}_{\alpha

765:   i}$ are on shell $i$, 

766: then the likelihood is

767: \begin{equation}

768: \ln L = \sum_i N^{\rm spec}_{\alpha i} \ln p_{\alpha i}.

769: \end{equation}

770: This is true if the redshifts are statistically independent, which

771: requires that they be dispersed across the sky to eliminate source

772: correlations.  We assume this limit.

773: 

774: Following \citet{MaBernstein}, the

775: Fisher matrix for the parameters $\{p_{\alpha i}\}$ resulting from the

776: unbiased spectroscopic observations is

777: \begin{equation}

778: F_{\alpha i \beta j} = \left\langle {\partial^2 (-\ln L) \over \partial p_{\alpha i}

779: \partial p_{\alpha j} } \right\rangle = N^{\rm spec}_\alpha {\delta_{ij} \over

780: p_{\alpha i}}.

781: \label{specfish}

782: \end{equation}

783: We add this Fisher information to the density-lensing Fisher matrix

784: (\ref{fisher}) 

785: when considering the constraints offered by a WL survey that is

786: combined with an {\em unbiased} spectroscopic redshift survey drawn

787: from one or more of the source population sets.

788: 

789: We do not in general presume any functional form for the $p_{\alpha

790:   i}$ redshift distributions when the sets are assigned from

791: photo-z's.  We adopt fiducial values either from an analytic form or from

792: a simulation of photo-z performance.  Then we leave all the $p_{\alpha

793:   i}$ as free parameters in the Fisher matrix, adding the

794: spectroscopic-survey Fisher matrix (\ref{specfish}) if appropriate to

795: the planned 

796: experiment.  Note that the cross-correlations in the WL survey data

797: offer constraints on the redshift distribution even if there is no

798: unbiased spectroscopic survey ($N^{\rm spec}_\alpha=0$).

799: 

800: \section{An Implementation}

801: A package of {\tt C++} classes implements the Fisher matrix

802: calculation for Gaussian lensing$+$density observations, the

803: spectroscopic-survey Fisher matrix, plus the

804: models for lensing-potential power and nuisance functions

805: described below.  From these classes we can construct numerous

806: applications, the most obvious being a Fisher-matrix forecast of

807: cosmological constraints from the combination of a photometric galaxy

808: lensing/density survey, plus a redshift survey to constrain the

809: photo-z distribution.

810: We list in Table~\ref{params1} input fields for this forecasting

811: implementation.  Further program inputs

812: are listed in later sections which detail the models for the lensing

813: power spectrum and nuisance parameters that we describe below and

814: adopt for this implementation.

815: 

816: In the current implementation we assume the source galaxies to be

817: binned solely by photo-z, but generalizations are possible, \eg including a

818: second population of source galaxies

819: sets that are observed spectroscopically.  Note that when additional

820: galaxy populations are introduced, we need a new set of nuisance functions

821: to describe them.  Furthermore, we need to model the

822: cross-correlations between all galaxy populations.

823: 

824: The calculation of the Fisher matrix takes $<1$ minute per

825: multipole bin using a single core of a typical current-epoch desktop

826: CPU.  Total execution time for a forecast is 10--20 minutes with the

827: default parameters, with the most time-consuming operation being the

828: marginalization over bias model parameters.  The execution time is

829: very sensitive to the redshift-shell width $\Delta\ln a$ and to the

830: width of the photo-z error distribution, as these control the number

831: of subsets and the parameter count.

832: 

833: \begin{deluxetable}{cll}

834: \tablewidth{0pt}

835: \tablecaption{Controlling inputs to Fisher forecast}

836: \tablehead{

837: \colhead{Parameter name} &

838: \colhead{Description} &

839: \colhead{Default}

840: }

841: \startdata

842: {\tt fsky} & $f_{\rm sky}$, imaging sky coverage & 0.5 \\

843: {\tt minLogL} & $\log_{10} \ell_{\rm min}$, minimum multipole & 1.0 \\

844: {\tt maxLogL} & $\log_{10} \ell_{\rm max}$, maximum multipole & 3.5 \\

845: {\tt logLStep} & $\Delta \log_{10} \ell$, multipole bin width in dex

846: & 0.3 \\

847: {\tt zmax} & $z_{\rm max}$, redshift of most distant shell & 3.5 \\

848: {\tt dlna} & $\Delta \ln a$, width of distance shells & 0.03 \\

849: {\tt coreDLna} & Maximum $|\ln (1+z_i)/(1+z_\alpha)|$ of subsets &

850: 0.15 \\

851: {\tt sigGamma} & $\sigma_\gamma$, shape noise per source galaxy & 0.24

852: \\

853: {\tt zdist} & String specifying fiducial source $n_\alpha$ and

854: $p_{\alpha i}$ & \nodata \\

855: {\tt logNSpec} & $\log_{10} N_{\rm spec}$ & 5. \\

856: {\tt outfile} & Root name for output files & \nodata 

857: \enddata

858: \label{params1}

859: \end{deluxetable}

860: 

861: 

862: 

863: \section{Power Spectrum Models}

864: \label{powermodel}

865: In most cosmological models, theory will offer strong guidance to the

866: form of the lensing-potential power spectrum $P^\phi(k,z)$.

867: In most forecasting or data-reduction codes this is a

868: fully deterministic function of a small number of cosmological

869: parameters.  In our analysis, however, the theoretical prediction is

870: taken as the mean $P^\phi$ value of a prior distribution of finite

871: uncertainty. 

872: 

873: \subsection{Central Model}

874: The WL likelihood given above can be calculated for any model that

875: predicts $P^\phi$.  We have chosen to implement a model that allows

876: for failure of General Relativity in describing growth of structure;

877: but other models are possible if one wishes to test the Poisson

878: equation or other tenets of General Relativity.  Under the conditions

879: \begin{enumerate}

880: \item The potential and the mass-energy density are related by the

881:   Poisson equation of General Relativity, and

882: \item Non-relativistic matter is the only significant inhomogeneous

883:   component of the 

884:   Universe, \ie there is no dark-energy clustering, and

885: \item Matter is conserved, $\bar \rho_m \propto a^{-3}$, and

886: \item $\Phi = -\Psi$, as in the absence of anisotropic stress for

887:   General Relativity

888: \end{enumerate}

889: then the potential power spectrum is related to the matter-density

890: fluctuation spectrum $P^m$ via

891: \begin{equation}

892: k^4P^\phi(k,a) = \left({3\omega_m \over 2a}\right)^2 P^m(k,a).

893: \label{poisson}

894: \end{equation}

895: Under these conditions, the linearized perturbations to the metric

896: grow in a scale-free manner so we can write

897: \begin{equation} 

898: P^\phi_{\rm lin}(k, a) = g_\phi^2(a) P^\phi_{\rm prim}(k) T^2(k).

899: \end{equation}

900: In our current code, the primordial power spectrum is a power law 

901: \begin{equation}

902: \Delta^2_{\rm prim}(k) \equiv {k^3 \over 2 \pi^2}P^\phi_{\rm prim}(k)

903:  = \left({3 \Delta_\zeta \over 5}\right)^2 (k/k_0)^{n_s-1}.

904: \end{equation}

905: The curvature variation $\Delta_\zeta$ and spectral index $n_s$ are

906: free parameters.

907: A running of the slope could easily be

908: added. The normalization wavenumber $k_0$ must be set by some

909: convention.  We typically adopt the 5-year WMAP parameters as fiducial

910: values \citet{WMAP5}.

911: 

912: The transfer function $T(k)$ is taken from \citet{EH}.  It is a function of

913: the matter and baryon densities $\omega_m$ and $\omega_b$.  The impact

914: of massive neutrinos could be added to the transfer function if

915: desired.  We ignore the baryon acoustic oscillations; experiments that

916: try to exploit them will generate a distinct Fisher matrix for them.

917: 

918: The map from $P^\phi_{\rm lin}$ to the nonlinear $P^\phi_{\rm nl}$ is derived

919: using the prescription of \citet{Smith} for nonlinear $P^m$, combined

920: with the Poisson equation (\ref{poisson}).  The

921: Smith {\it et al.} formula also requires knowledge of $\Omega_m$ at

922: the desired epoch, but it can be expressed in terms of other

923: quantities that are already in our model: $\Omega_m(z_i)=\omega_m

924: a_i^{-3} h^{-2}(z_i).$  We do not expect the \citet{Smith} formula to

925: describe non-linear growth to high accuracy for all (or any) cosmologies.

926: It does however capture the dependence of non-linear

927: power on cosmological parameters to a level that suffices for

928: forecasting purposes.

929: 

930: In General Relativity, the growth function $g_\phi(a)$ is determined by the

931: expansion history $H(z)$.  Defining $F=\ln (ag_\phi)$, the growth

932: equation is

933: \begin{equation}

934: \label{growtheq}

935: F^{\prime\prime} + \left( F^\prime\right)^2 + F^\prime\left(2+ {d\ln h

936:     \over d \ln a}\right) = {3 \omega_m \over 2 h^2 a^3},

937: \end{equation}

938: where a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $\ln a$.  Note

939: that $F^\prime$ is the quantity $d\ln g_m/d\ln a$ that appears in the

940: peculiar-velocity power spectrum for a tracer of mass.  

941: 

942: If GR holds, then the above relations fully specify the model for

943: $P^\phi$ given $\{\omega_m, \omega_b, n_s, \ln \Delta_\zeta\}$ plus

944: the expansion history, which in turn is given by $\{D_i,

945: \omega_k\}$. As a test of GR, we allow the growth function arbitrary

946: deviations from the $F_{\rm fid}$ that solves the GR growth equation for

947: the fiducial expansion history:

948: \begin{equation}

949: \ln ag_\phi(a_i) = F_{\rm fid}(a_i) + \delta F_i.

950: \end{equation}

951: The $\delta F_i$ become parameters of the likelihood function.

952: 

953: \subsection{Model Errors}

954: An important WL systematic is the expected finite accuracy in

955:   theoretical modeling of the power spectrum.  We hence introduce

956:   an error function to describe the describe the (logarithmic)

957:   difference between the power $P^\phi$ and the value predicted by the

958:   parametric model described in the previous paragraphs:

959: \begin{equation}

960: \ln P^\phi(k,a) = \ln P^\phi_{\rm nl}(k,a) + \delta \ln P(k,a).

961: \end{equation}

962: The nuisance function $\delta\ln P$ will be described with the

963: ``$kz$'' parametric form described in Appendix~\ref{functions}.

964: We parameterize the $\delta \ln P$ function by its values $\delta

965: P_{ij}$ at a grid of points $(k_i, a_j)$ regularly spaced in $\ln k$

966: and $\ln a$.  The $\delta\ln P$ is linearly interpolated between grid

967: points. 

968: The $\delta P_{ij}$ become free parameters of

969: the model and hence

970: parameters in the likelihood function. We then place an independent

971: Gaussian prior on each $\delta P_{ij}$ which has mean of zero and a

972: standard deviation of

973: \begin{eqnarray}

974: \sqrt{{\rm Var}(\delta P_{ij})} & = & 0.012 f_{\rm Zhan} \cases {

975: 1 + 5\log_{10}(k_i/k_1) & $k_i>k_1$ \cr

976: (k_i/k_1)^{1+a_j} & $k_i<k_1$ }  \\

977: k_1 & \equiv & a^{-2.6} \,{\rm Mpc}^{-1}.

978: \end{eqnarray}

979: This function is a fit to an estimate, supplied by Hu Zhan, of the

980: impact of baryonic physics on the mass power spectrum \citet{ZhanKnox,Jing}.

981: We scale the overall size of the theory-error systematic with the

982: control scalar $f_{\rm Zhan}$.  We can also adjust the density $\Delta

983: \ln k$ and $\Delta \ln a$ at which the $\delta P_{ij}$ grid points are

984: spaced. This corresponds to setting some coherence length for theory

985: errors in this space.  In \S\ref{tuneup} we will investigate the choice of

986: these grid spacings.

987: 

988: The procedure above means that we replace the $P^\phi_i$ as parameters in

989: our likelihood with a new (and hopefully smaller) set:

990: \begin{itemize}

991: \item The small set $\{\omega_m, \omega_b, \Delta^2_\zeta, n_s\}$ that

992:   control the linear power spectrum.

993: \item The $\{\delta F_i\}$ which define the growth function vs redshift.

994: \item A grid of theory error values $\delta P$, which are nuisance

995:   parameters to marginalize after construction of a Fisher matrix or

996:   likelihood.  We have physically-based priors to apply to these

997:   before marginalization. 

998: \end{itemize}

999: Table~\ref{params2} lists the input fields for the part of our

1000: forecasting code which constructs the power-spectrum model.  The WMAP5

1001: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology provides the fiducial values of all

1002: lensing power values; the program inputs define the behavior of the

1003: deviations from the theoretical model and the prior expectations on

1004: the size of such deviations.

1005: \begin{deluxetable}{cll}

1006: \tablewidth{0pt}

1007: \tablecaption{Power spectrum inputs to Fisher forecast}

1008: \tablehead{

1009: \colhead{Parameter name} &

1010: \colhead{Description} &

1011: \colhead{Default}

1012: }

1013: \startdata

1014: {\tt zhan} & $f_{\rm Zhan}$, power-spectrum theory uncertainty

1015: relative to baryonic effects & 0.5 \\

1016: {\tt psDlnk} & $\Delta \ln k$, node spacing of power-spectrum theory

1017: errors in $k$ & 1.0 \\

1018: {\tt psDlna} & $\Delta \ln a$, node spacing of power-spectrum theory

1019: errors in $a$ & 0.5  

1020: \enddata

1021: \label{params2}

1022: \end{deluxetable}

1023: 

1024: 

1025: \section{Non-parametric nuisance modeling}

1026: \label{nuisance}

1027: \subsection{General comments on nuisance functions}

1028: The WL likelihood contains many nuisance parameters that are discretized

1029: representations of nuisance {\em functions}.  It is common in the

1030: literature to assign some parametric form to a nuisance

1031: function, then marginalize over the parameters of the nuisance

1032: function to recover a purely cosmological likelihood.  This can be a

1033: very dangerous approach: if the nuisance function does {\em not}

1034: in actuality follow the assumed form, then the process is invalid and

1035: we may have greatly overestimated the power of the experiment to

1036: remove the systematic error from the signal.  When marginalizing over

1037: a systematic, we must be sure that the assumed parametric form is

1038: sufficiently flexible to include any expected manifestation of the

1039: systematic.  For example we should not assume that systematics scale

1040: linearly with redshift unless there is a physical reason to expect

1041: this.

1042: 

1043: It is unfortunately not possible to model a completely free function

1044: with a finite number of free parameters.  This becomes possible,

1045: however, if we limit the bandwidth of variation in the function.

1046: As an example consider our power-spectrum theory error function

1047: $\delta \ln P(k,z)$.  We could decompose $\delta \ln P$ into

1048: Fourier modes or polynomial terms over its finite $(k,z)$ domain.

1049: Retaining a finite number of modes or terms leads to a tractable

1050: parameterization, albeit with a maximum frequency or polynomial order

1051: that defines a coherence length for the reconstructed function. For

1052: $\delta \ln P$ we choose to limit the bandwidth using linear interpolation

1053: between a 2d grid of specified values.

1054: In

1055: Appendix~\ref{functions} we describe the family of functions that we

1056: use to model the nuisance functions of $(k, z, \Delta z)$ that are

1057: common in the WL likelihood analysis ({\it cf.}

1058: Table~\ref{nuisancefunc}).\footnote{

1059: In practice we use $\ln a$ and $\Delta\ln a$ to specify each subset's

1060: nominal redshift and redshift error, but in the text we will stick

1061: with $(z,\Delta z)$ to reduce the clutter.}

1062:   The Appendix describes both the

1063: functional form, and the prior likelihoods on the parameters that are

1064: used to give the nuisance function the desired $RMS$ uncertainty.

1065: 

1066: These models of nuisance functions are non-parametric in the sense of

1067: being able to reproduce very general types of behavior once the

1068: bandwidth is specified.  The question remains: what is the proper

1069: choice of bandwidth to allow the nuisance function?  Our approach is

1070: to find the bandwidth which {\em causes the most damage to

1071:   cosmological constraints} under a prior that specifies the expected RMS

1072: fluctuations in the nuisance function.  This is the most conservative

1073: approach.  Typically one finds the following: if the nuisance function

1074: is given a highly coherent, low-order functional form, then it is

1075: easily distinguished from cosmological signals and can be marginalized

1076: away with little damage to cosmological constraints.  On the other

1077: hand if the nuisance-function bandwidth is very high, then the

1078: broad WL kernel tends to average away the nuisance signal, leaving 

1079: little trace in the cosmology.  There is an intermediate point where

1080: the systematic error is most easily confused with cosmology.  The

1081: conservative approach is to find this regime and use it for modeling

1082: the systematic error.  In \S\ref{tuneup} we will find coherence lengths in $z$

1083: and $k$

1084: at which our systematics are most damaging.

1085: 

1086: \subsection{Redshift Distributions}

1087: We specify the fiducial values of the photo-z distribution $n_\alpha$

1088: and error probabilities $p_{\alpha i}$ either with analytic formulae

1089: (\eg photo-z errors Gaussian in $\ln a$), or by taking the output of

1090: a simulation of galaxy detection and photo-z assignment for the chosen

1091: survey.  For spectroscopic samples or the CMB source plane there are

1092: no photo-z errors at all.

1093: 

1094: We do not place any parametric form or prior assumption on the

1095: $p_{\alpha i}$.  All redshift constraints arise either

1096: from the lensing survey data itself or from additional spectroscopic

1097: data.  The likelihood arising from spectroscopic redshift samples is

1098: described in \S\ref{speclike}.

1099: 

1100: \subsection{Shear calibration and magnification bias}

1101: The shear calibration factors $f_{\alpha i}$ and magnification bias

1102: coefficients $q_{\alpha i}$ are, most generally, distinct in every

1103: subset.  We use the ``$z\Delta z$'' functional

1104: form described in Appendix~\ref{functions} to generate the $f_{\alpha

1105:   i}$ and $q_{\alpha i}$ from a smaller set of function parameters.

1106: Each function is specified by a polynomial function of $\Delta

1107: z$; polynomial coefficients are interpolated between grid points

1108: equally spaced in $\ln a$ at intervals $\Delta\ln a$.

1109: 

1110: We set the fiducial functions to be

1111: $f_{\alpha i}=0,$ and $q_{\alpha i}=q_{\rm fid}$ independent of

1112: $(k,z)$.  The priors on the

1113: polynomial coefficients are chosen to yield a chosen RMS variation of

1114: $f$ or of $q$.  As detailed in Appendix~\ref{functions}, we also

1115: specify whether the nuisance function varies mostly along the $z$

1116: direction or along the $\Delta z$ direction of its domain.

1117: 

1118: Table~\ref{params3} lists the program inputs necessary to specify the

1119: model for $f$ or $q$: their functional form, fiducial values, and

1120: priors on deviations from the fiducial.

1121: 

1122: \begin{deluxetable}{cll}

1123: \tablewidth{0pt}

1124: \tablecaption{Shear calibration and magnification bias inputs to Fisher forecast}

1125: \tablehead{

1126: \colhead{Parameter name} &

1127: \colhead{Description} &

1128: \colhead{Default}

1129: }

1130: \startdata

1131: {\tt fRMS} & $f_{\rm RMS}$, RMS variation of $f$ allowed under prior &

1132: 0.01 \\

1133: {\tt qFid} & $q_{\rm fid}$, fiducial value for all $q_{\alpha i}$ & 1.0 \\

1134: {\tt qRMS} & $q_{\rm RMS}$, RMS variation of $q$ allowed under prior &

1135: 0.1 \\

1136: {\tt fqDlna} & $\Delta\ln a$, node spacing for $f$ \& $q$ models & 0.5

1137: \\

1138: {\tt fqDzOrder} & Order of polynomial used to model $\Delta z$

1139: dependence of $f,q$

1140: & 2 \\

1141: {\tt fqVarFracDZ} & Fraction of $f,q$ variance that due to $\Delta z$

1142: dependence & 0.5  

1143: \enddata

1144: \label{params3}

1145: \end{deluxetable}

1146: 

1147: 

1148: \subsection{Galaxy correlation coefficients}

1149: The correlation coefficient

1150: $r^g_{\alpha i}$ is, most generally, different at each subset

1151: and at each multipole $\ell$.  We model $r^g$ using the 

1152: ``$kz\Delta z$'' function form described in Appendix~\ref{functions}.

1153: These functions are polynomial in $\Delta z$, with the polynomial

1154: coefficients linearly interpolated

1155: from a grid in $(\ln k, \ln a)$ space.  This grid of

1156: polynomial coefficients replaces the $r^g_{\alpha i}$

1157: as parameters in the likelihood.

1158: 

1159: For the fiducial correlation

1160: coefficient, we interpolate smoothly between a linear and non-linear

1161: limit according to the value of $\Delta^2_{\rm lin}(k,z)=k^3P^m_{\rm

1162:   lin}(k,z)/2\pi^2$:

1163: \begin{equation}

1164: r^g_{\rm fid}(k,z) = {r^g_{\rm NL} + r^g_{\rm L} \over 2}

1165:  + { (r^g_{\rm NL} - r^g_{\rm L})  \over \pi} \tan^{-1} \left[

1166: { \ln \Delta_{\rm lin}(k,z) \over W} \right].

1167: \label{lnlinterp}

1168: \end{equation}

1169: The constant $W$ sets the width of the transition from the linear to

1170: nonlinear regime.  We set $W=1$ unless otherwise noted.

1171: 

1172: Each polynomial coefficient at each grid point is assigned an

1173: independent Gaussian prior.  These are selected to yield a preselected

1174: RMS variation $r^g_{\rm RMS}$. The RMS prior

1175: uncertainties are interpolated in $(k,z)$ space

1176: between linear and 

1177: non-linear limiting values $r^g_{\rm RMS,L}$ and $r^g_{\rm RMS,NL}$

1178: using the same functional form (\ref{lnlinterp}).

1179: 

1180: Table~\ref{params4} lists the program inputs needed to specify the

1181: galaxy bias and correlation models.

1182: 

1183: \subsection{Galaxy bias}

1184: We expect $b^g$ to vary quite strongly with $z$, as the more distant

1185: source galaxies are likely intrinsically very bright and highly

1186: biased. There may also be a strong dependence of $b^g$ on $\Delta z$

1187: because both $\Delta z$ and the bias may couple strongly to galaxy

1188: spectral type.  Variation with $k$ should be weaker.  We hence define $b^g$

1189: to be the sum of two functions,

1190: \begin{equation}

1191: b^g = b^g_{\rm coarse}(z,\Delta z) + b^g_{\rm fine}(k,z,\Delta z).

1192: \end{equation}

1193: The fiducial values are $b^g_{\rm coarse}=b^g_{\rm fid}, b^g_{\rm

1194:   fine}=0$.  

1195: 

1196: The coarse

1197: contribution is given a very weak prior, but can only vary slowly with

1198: $z$: $\Delta\ln a=0.5$ by default for the $b^g_{\rm coarse}$ grid nodes.

1199: 

1200: The $b^g_{\rm fine}$ function is interpolated between the same $(\ln

1201: k, \ln a)$ grid points as the correlation coefficient $r^g$. The prior

1202: on each $b^g_{\rm fine}$ node is arranged to give RMS uncertainty

1203: that is interpolated between linear and nonlinear limits $b^g_{\rm

1204:   RMS,L}$ and $b^g_{\rm RMS,NL}$ just as for $r^g$.

1205: 

1206: 

1207: \begin{deluxetable}{cll}

1208: \tablewidth{0pt}

1209: \tablecaption{Galaxy bias inputs to Fisher forecast}

1210: \tablehead{

1211: \colhead{Parameter name} &

1212: \colhead{Description} &

1213: \colhead{Default}

1214: }

1215: \startdata

1216: {\tt bg} & $b^g_{\rm fid}$, fiducial galaxy bias & 1.5 \\

1217: {\tt rgL} & $r^g_{\rm L}$, fiducial galaxy correlation coeff at linear

1218: limit & 0.9 \\

1219: {\tt rgNL} & $r^g_{\rm NL}$, fiducial galaxy correlation coeff at non-linear

1220: limit & 0.6 \\

1221: {\tt biasDlnk} & $\Delta\ln k$ interpolation grid step for bias

1222: models & 1.0 \\

1223: {\tt biasDlna} & $\Delta\ln a$ interpolation grid step for bias

1224: models & 0.1 \\

1225: {\tt brgRMSL} & $b^g_{\rm RMS,L}$ and $r^g_{\rm RMS,L}$ RMS prior

1226: variation for bias and correlation, linear limit & 0.05 \\

1227: {\tt brgRMSNL} & $b^g_{\rm RMS,NL}$ and $r^g_{\rm RMS,NL}$ RMS prior

1228: variation non-linear limit & 0.10 \\

1229: {\tt brVarFracDZ} & Fraction of $b^g,r^g$ variance due to $\Delta

1230: z$ dependence & 0.2 \\

1231: {\tt bgCoarseDlna} & $\Delta\ln a$ node grid spacing for $b^g_{\rm coarse}$

1232:  & 0.5 \\

1233: {\tt bgCoarseZRMS} & RMS prior variation of $b^g_{\rm coarse}$ at

1234: $\Delta z=0$ & 0.5 \\

1235: {\tt bgCoarseDZRMS} & RMS prior variation of $b^g_{\rm coarse}$ at

1236: fixed $z$ & 0.3 \\

1237: {\tt kgg} & $K^{gg}_{\rm fid}$, fiducial value of $K^{gg}(k,z)$

1238: cross-corr spec & 2. \\

1239: {\tt kggRMS} & $K^{gg}_{\rm RMS}$, prior variation on $K^{gg}(k,z)$ &

1240: 1.

1241: \enddata

1242: \label{params4}

1243: \end{deluxetable}

1244: 

1245: 

1246: \subsection{Intrinsic Alignments}

1247: The strength of intrinsic alignments are specified by the

1248: $b^\kappa_{\alpha i}$ and $r^\kappa_{\alpha i}$ values at each

1249: multipole $\ell$.  As for the galaxy density, the free-parameter count

1250: can be reduced by specifying parametric functions $b^\kappa,

1251: r^\kappa$ of $(k, z, \Delta 

1252: z)$ instead.  Each of these two functions modeled using the

1253: ``$kz\Delta z$'' form described in Appendix~\ref{functions}, just as

1254: for $r^g$.  The fiducial $b^\kappa_{\rm fid}$ and 

1255: $r^\kappa_{\rm fid}$ are

1256: taken as constant over the entire domain.  The RMS variation

1257: $b^\kappa_{\rm RMS}$ and $r^\kappa_{\rm RMS}$ in the

1258: priors of these functions are also taken to be constant over the domain.

1259: We take $b^\kappa_{\rm RMS}=|b^\kappa_{\rm fid}|$, because we

1260: expect that the best constraints on IA to always arise from self-calibration

1261: of WL surveys rather than through any external modeling or

1262: prior.  Roughly speaking, the IA measured by \citet{Mandelbaum06} for

1263: the SDSS population corresponds to $b^\kappa \approx -0.003$

1264: \citep{BridleKing}, which we will normally take as our fiducial model

1265: for IA.  Setting $b^\kappa_{\rm fid}=0$ turns off the IA systematic entirely.

1266: 

1267: Table~\ref{params5} lists the program inputs needed to specify the

1268: functional form for intrinsic alignments, the fiducial values, and the

1269: prior constraints.  Note that we assume the intrinsic-alignment

1270: functions to be defined on the same $(\ln k, \ln a)$ grid as the

1271: galaxy bias and covariance functions.

1272: 

1273: \begin{deluxetable}{cll}

1274: \tablewidth{0pt}

1275: \tablecaption{Intrinsic-alignment (IA) inputs to Fisher forecast}

1276: \tablehead{

1277: \colhead{Parameter name} &

1278: \colhead{Description} &

1279: \colhead{Default}

1280: }

1281: \startdata

1282: {\tt bk} & $b^\kappa_{\rm fid}$, fiducial intrinsic alignment &

1283: $-0.003$ \\

1284: {\tt rk} & $r^\kappa_{\rm fid}$, fiducial correlation between mass and

1285: intrinsic alignment & 0.7 \\

1286: {\tt rkRMS} & $r^\kappa_{\rm RMS}$, RMS prior variation in $r^\kappa$ & 0.2 \\

1287: {\tt kkk} & $K^{\kappa\kappa}_{\rm fid}$, fiducial value of

1288: $K^{\kappa\kappa}(k,z)$ & 1. \\

1289: {\tt kkkRMS} & $K^{\kappa\kappa}_{\rm RMS}$, RMS prior variance of $K^{\kappa\kappa}$

1290:  & 1.\\

1291: {\tt skg} & $s^{g\kappa}_{\rm fid}$, fiducial IA-bias

1292: cross-correlation & 0. \\

1293: {\tt skgRMS} & $s^{g\kappa}_{\rm RMS}$, RMS prior on IA-bias

1294: cross-correlation & 0.3 

1295: \enddata

1296: \label{params5}

1297: \end{deluxetable}

1298: 

1299: \subsection{Cross-correlation coefficients}

1300: The cross-correlation coefficients $r^{gg}_{\alpha\beta i},

1301: r^{g\kappa}_{\alpha\beta i}$, and $r^{\kappa\kappa}_{\alpha\beta i}$ are even

1302: more complex because each depends on $k, z$, plus two subsets' $\Delta

1303: z_{\alpha i}$ and $\Delta z_{\beta i}$.  We find it infeasible to

1304: construct nuisance-function templates spanning 4 dimensions.  We

1305: therefore simplify by first writing 

1306: \begin{equation}

1307: r^{g\kappa}_{\alpha \beta i}  =  r^g_{\alpha i} r^\kappa_{\beta i} 

1308:  + s^{g\kappa}_{\alpha \beta i} 

1309: \sqrt{\left[1-(r^g_{\alpha i})^2\right]

1310:       \left[1-(r^\kappa_{\beta i})^2\right]}.

1311: \end{equation}

1312: A value $|s^{g\kappa}_{\alpha \beta i}|\le 1$ is necessary (but not

1313: sufficient) to keep the

1314: mass-galaxy covariance 

1315: matrix from acquiring non-physical negative eigenvalues.  In principle

1316: the functional form of $s^{g\kappa}$ must vary over four

1317: dimensions, but we make the gross simplification that it is constant

1318: for the survey, since we expect this type of cross-correlation to have

1319: minimal effect on cosmological constraints.  The program thus requires

1320: simply a fiducial scalar $s^{g\kappa}$ and an RMS for its Gaussian

1321: prior.

1322: 

1323: The density-density cross-correlation $r^{gg}$ may have substantial

1324: impact on cosmological constraints, so we model it with more freedom,

1325: though not full 4-dimensional behavior. We set

1326: \begin{equation}

1327: \label{kggfunc}

1328: s^{gg}_{\alpha \beta i}  =  {\rm max}\left[ 0, 1 - K^{gg}(k,z_i) { |z_\alpha - z_\beta|

1329:     \over 2 \Delta z_{\rm max} } \right].

1330: \end{equation}

1331: This

1332: functional form for $s$ gives the most closely related subsets the

1333: highest covariance.    $\Delta z_{\rm max}$

1334: is the width of the redshift distribution within a set.

1335: The function $K^{gg}(k,z)$ adjusts how quickly the

1336: subsets decorrelate as their photo-z's diverge. 

1337: $K^{gg}(k,z)$ is implemented as the ``$kz$'' functional form described

1338: in Appendix~\ref{functions}, namely a linear

1339: interpolation between a grid of values in the

1340: $(\ln k, \ln a)$ plane.  We hence parameterize the

1341: 4-dimensional cross-correlation function by a 2d grid of $K^{gg}$

1342: nodal values.  These points are all given the same fiducial value

1343: $K^{gg}_{\rm fid}$.

1344: The $K^{gg}$ nodal values are given Gaussian priors

1345: to select a range of uncertainty $K^{gg}_{\rm RMS}$.  

1346: 

1347: The cross-correlation parameters $r^{\kappa\kappa}_{\alpha\beta i}$

1348: are similarly reduced from 4-dimensional behavior by defining 

1349: values $s^{\kappa\kappa}_{\alpha\beta i}$ that are set by the nodal

1350: values of a 2-dimensional function $K^{\kappa\kappa}(k,z)$ in complete

1351: analogy with \eqq{kggfunc}.

1352: 

1353: \subsection{An apology}

1354: This section on nuisance functions is obscure and lengthy, especially

1355: regarding the cross-correlations of galaxies and intrinsic alignments.

1356: It is, unfortunately, impossible to fully describe the likelihood of

1357: lensing survey data without invoking some model for all of these functions.

1358: 

1359: Previous work has avoided these messy details and functions by making

1360: many simplifications.

1361: Most have implicitly assumed that all the correlation coefficients are

1362: unity.  Most

1363: have ignored the intrinsic-alignment signal entirely, {\it i.e.}

1364: taking $b^\kappa=0$.  All previous analyses have considered the galaxy

1365: bias to be constant within a set, and if the multiplicative error has

1366: been considered, it has also been constant within a galaxy set.  Only

1367: a few analyses have allowed galaxy bias to vary with redshift

1368: \citep{Zhan06, BJ04}.  The most sophisticated treatment to date

1369: is that of \citet{HJ04}, who take all bias and correlation

1370: coefficients to derive from a halo model of galaxies.  The

1371: redshift-distribution parameters $p_{\alpha i}$ have, in the most

1372: ambitious analyses to date, been reduced to two-parameter (Gaussian)

1373: functions. \citet{MaBernstein} consider sum-of-Gaussian models.  These

1374: assumptions can all be implemented in the present 

1375: formalism if desired, but can also be relaxed to assess their impact

1376: on the cosmological constraints.

1377: 

1378: 

1379: \section{Tuning the forecast parameters}

1380: \label{tuneup}

1381: In this section we determine the values of bin widths and

1382: nuisance-function bandwidths that are needed for reliable extraction

1383: of maximum information from lensing surveys.  Unless otherwise noted,

1384: we will derive these parameters for a canonical survey with $f_{\rm

1385:   sky}=0.5$; an effective source density of 60 galaxies per arcmin$^2$

1386: with median redshift of 1.2; $\sigma_\gamma=0.24$; and

1387: Gaussian-distributed fiducial photo-z errors of $\sigma_z=0.04(1+z)$.

1388: Except as noted, we assume $N_{\rm spec}=10^7$ so that photo-z

1389: calibration errors are negligible, and also reduce the shear

1390: calibration RMS uncertainty to $10^{-4}$ to be negligible as well.

1391: Other inputs assume the default values given in

1392: Tables~\ref{params1}--\ref{params5}. 

1393: 

1394: The information content of a survey will be gauged using the DETF

1395: figure of merit \citep{DETF}: the Fisher matrix will be marginalized

1396: over all nuisance parameters, then the $D_i$ and $\delta F_i$

1397: variables projected onto a model obeying General Relativity with

1398: homogeneous dark energy of equation of state $w=w_0+w_a(1-a)$.  A prior

1399: representing expected Planck results is added (also from the DETF

1400: report), and we marginalize over $\{\omega_m, \omega_b, \omega_k,

1401: \omega_{\rm DE}, n_s, \Delta_\zeta\}$ to yield the Fisher matrix ${\bf

1402:   F}_w$ over $\{w_o, w_a\}$.  The DETF FoM is defined as $|{\bf

1403:   F}_w|^{1/2}$.  

1404: \subsection{Multipole bin size}

1405: Since we have excluded baryon oscillations from our transfer function,

1406: we expect to find little information in the detailed shape of the

1407: lensing or density power spectra.  The broad lensing kernel in

1408: redshift also smoothes away fine structure in the convergence.  So we

1409: expect the information content in the Fisher matrix to be independent of

1410: the multipole bin width $\Delta\log_{10}\ell$ below some modest

1411: value.  Larger values of $\Delta\log_{10}\ell$ reduce the complexity

1412: and execution time of the calculations, so we seek the maximum

1413: $\Delta\log_{10}\ell$ at which nearly all the lensing information is

1414: present.

1415: 

1416: Figure~\ref{dlogl} plots the DETF FoM of the lensing$+$density survey

1417: (plus spectroscopic redshift survey and Planck prior) vs

1418: $\Delta\log_{10}\ell$ for several candidate surveys. The top line is

1419: for a very optimistic survey: $n_{\rm eff}=100\,{\rm arcmin}^{-2}$,

1420: $N_{\rm spec}=10^7$, $q_{\rm RMS}=10^{-3}$, $f_{\rm RMS}=10^{-4}$,

1421: $b^g_{\rm RMS}=r^g_{\rm RMS}=0.01$, and $b^\kappa_{\rm fid}=10^{-3}$.

1422: By reducing the systematics and the shot noise to (unrealistically)

1423: low levels, we give the lensing survey the chance to extract maximal

1424: information.  We find that the FoM gains only 2\% for

1425: $\Delta\log_{10}\ell<0.3$. 

1426: 

1427: Other lines in the plot are FoM vs $\Delta\log_{10}\ell$ for weaker

1428: surveys, with $N_{\rm spec}=10^{4.5}$ and/or  $n_{\rm eff}=60\,{\rm arcmin}^{-2}$,

1429: $q_{\rm RMS}=0.1$, $b^g_{\rm RMS}=r^g_{\rm RMS}=0.1$, $b^\kappa_{\rm

1430:   fid}=-0.003$.  In these cases we also find that the DETF FoM

1431: increases by $<2$--3\% for $\Delta\log_{10}\ell<0.3$.

1432: 

1433: We adopt $\Delta\log_{10}\ell=0.3$ for all future use.

1434: \begin{figure}

1435: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}

1436: \caption[]{{\em Left:} DETF Figure of Merit resulting from Fisher analyses of

1437:   several weak lensing surveys, plotted against multipole bin width

1438:   $\Delta\log_{10}\ell$ of the analysis.  Each solid line plots a

1439:   particular survey scenario (see text for details).  The dashed lines

1440:   are horizontal, to 

1441:   help the eye judge the information degradation as we increase

1442:   $\Delta\log_{10}\ell$.  We conclude that $\Delta\log_{10}\ell\le

1443:   0.3$ retains $>97\%$ of the information for surveys of any quality

1444:   level. {\em Right:} Value of DETF FoM for the default survey vs

1445:   range of multipole used.  Choice of upper bound is more critical

1446:   than choice of lower bound on $\ell$.

1447: }

1448: \label{dlogl}

1449: \end{figure}

1450: 

1451: \subsection{Multipole range}

1452: On the right-hand side of Figure~\ref{dlogl} we plot the DETF FoM for

1453: various ranges of $\ell$.  In this study we assume a space based

1454: survey obtaining $n_{\rm eff}=60\,{\rm arcmin}^{-2}$ over $f_{\rm

1455:   sky}=0.5$.  The photo-z and shear calibration systematics are held

1456: negligible with priors but other systematics (intrinsic alignment,

1457: etc.) have default priors.

1458: 

1459: We see that the choice of $\ell_{\rm max}$ has a strong influence, as

1460: moving from $10^3$ to $10^4$ changes the FoM by $1.7\times$.  We note

1461: this is true even though we have included uncertainty in the

1462: theoretical power spectrum at high $k$ values, showing that there is

1463: still information to be gained when the theory is incomplete.  We

1464: find, in fact, that our default power-spectrum theory uncertainty of

1465: $f_{\rm Zhan}=0.5$ leads to only 6\% degradation of the DETF FoM

1466: relative to

1467: an assumption of {\em zero} uncertainty in the theory, even when

1468: $\ell_{\rm max}=10^4$.  

1469: 

1470: Unfortunately our assumption of Gaussian statistics will fail by

1471: $\ell=10^4$ \citet{CoorayHu01,LeePen}, rendering the Fisher calculation less

1472: reliable.  We will restrict our analysis to

1473: $\ell<10^{3.5}$, but additional study of the effect of

1474: non-Gaussian statistics is clearly needed.

1475: 

1476:  The flat-sky and Limber approximations will fail

1477: at low $\ell$, but the choice of $\ell_{\rm min}$ appears less

1478: critical to the $w_0/w_a$ information content, so will retain the

1479: $\ell>10$ bound in our analyses.

1480: 

1481: \subsection{Scale resolution for nuisance functions}

1482: We require choice of node spacing $\Delta\ln k$ in the nuisance

1483: functions for the power-spectrum theory errors, the calibration errors

1484: $f$ and $q$, and the bias/correlation parameters $b^g_{\rm fine}, r^g,

1485: b^\kappa, r^\kappa, K^{gg},$ and $K^{\kappa\kappa}$.  We set

1486: $\Delta\ln k$ to be equal for all nuisance functions, and find the

1487: value which minimizes the DETF FoM as the ``most damaging'' scale of

1488: variation.  We examine the default case described above, for several values

1489: of the

1490: shear calibration prior $f_{\rm RMS}$ and photo-z calibration size

1491: $N_{\rm spec}$.

1492: 

1493: Figure~\ref{dlnk} shows $\Delta\ln k\approx 0.7$--1 yields minimum

1494: information for fixed RMS priors, but the dependence is very weak.

1495: The FoM varies by only 7\% over the range $0.5<\Delta\ln k<1.5$.  We

1496: henceforth adopt $\Delta\ln k=1$.  Perhaps not surprisingly, this

1497: makes the nuisance functions have $\approx 1$ independent node in each

1498: multipole bin of $\Delta\log_{10}\ell=0.3$.

1499: 

1500: \begin{figure}

1501: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps}

1502: \caption[]{{\em Left:} DETF FoM vs $\Delta\ln k$, the spacing of nuisance-function

1503:   nodes in the length-scale axis.  We examine surveys with varying

1504:   strengths of priors on shear calibration and photo-z calibration.

1505:   For this plot, each is normalized to the value at $\Delta\ln k=0.7$

1506:   in order to show the (weak) dependence of FoM on $\Delta\ln k$ when

1507:   the prior on RMS nuisance-function fluctuations are held fixed.  We

1508:   adopt $\Delta\ln k=1$ as the most conservative bandwidth for

1509:   nuisance-function variation with scale. {\em Right:} DETF FoM vs

1510:   $\Delta \ln a$, the spacing of nodes in redshift for the bias,

1511:   correlation, and intrinsic-alignment nuisance functions.  The FoM is

1512:   quite sensitive to this choice, and allowing the bias/IA to vary on

1513:   $\Delta\ln a=0.1$ scales is most damaging to cosmological inference.

1514: }

1515: \label{dlnk}

1516: \end{figure}

1517: 

1518: \subsection{Redshift resolution for nuisance functions}

1519: All of the nuisance functions are dependent on $z$.  We next

1520: investigate the redshift node spacing $\Delta\ln a$ at which the

1521: nuisance functions are most damaging to the DETF FoM.  We find that

1522: the FoM is insensitive to the $\Delta\ln a$ of the power-spectrum

1523: theory errors.  The value of $\Delta\ln a$ for the calibration

1524: functions $f$ and $q$ that minimizes the FoM depends upon the strength

1525: of the prior.  The choice $\Delta\ln a=0.5$ produces a FoM

1526: that is within 2\% of the minimum, however, so we fix this value for

1527: the theory-error and calibration nuisance functions.

1528: 

1529: The redshift freedom given to the bias and intrinsic-alignment

1530: nuisance functions has a strong impact on the DETF information

1531: content.  Figure~\ref{dlnk} illustrates that, at fixed RMS prior

1532: variation, models with freedom to vary on rather fine scales,

1533: $\Delta\ln a = 0.1$ are most damaging to cosmological

1534: information.

1535: 

1536: 

1537: \section{Conclusion}

1538: The core of this paper are the expressions (\ref{gg1})--(\ref{kk1})

1539: for the two-point 

1540: correlation matrix of the lensing and density observable multipoles produced by

1541: a typical lensing survey.  This was derived under a very limited set

1542: of assumptions: a homogeneous and isotropic 4-dimensional metric

1543: Universe with scalar perturbations; plus the weak-lensing limit,

1544: the Limber and Born approximations, and an approximation that lensing

1545: magnification bias and intrinsic density fluctuations are additive.

1546: The last four assumptions could be relaxed at the expense of

1547: computational complexity.  We thus hope that data analyses based on

1548: this framework could be used to constrain a wide variety of potential

1549: explanations for the acceleration phenomenon, including gravity

1550: modifications as well as new fields in the Universe.  In the limit of

1551: Gaussian fluctuation fields, the two-point information is a complete

1552: description of the likelihood and hence can be used to construct

1553: Fisher matrices or analyze data.

1554: As currently configured, the analysis yields the survey's ability to

1555: constrain the distance function $D(z)$ and linear growth function

1556: $g_\phi(z)$, without reference to particular dark-energy models.  It

1557: would be straightforward to implement scale-dependent 

1558: linear-growth functions.

1559: 

1560: This framework subsumes all of the

1561: information (up to 2-point level) that is likely to be obtained from

1562: lensing observations: density-density, lensing-density, and

1563: lensing-lensing correlations, plus redshift distributions from

1564: unbiased spectroscopic surveys (\S\ref{speclike}).  Furthermore it

1565: allows for the most 

1566: important expected forms of systematic error: photo-z calibration

1567: errors, shear and magnification-bias calibration errors, intrinsic

1568: alignments, and inaccuracies in power-spectrum theory.  Systematics

1569: that are additive to shear (\eg uncorrected PSF ellipticity) or to

1570: density (\eg uncorrected foreground extinction) have not been

1571: included.  We have not done so since the additive errors could, in

1572: principle, exhibit almost any arbitrary signature in the covariance

1573: matrix of the observables.  Hence a completely general model for

1574: additive errors would be degenerate with almost all other signals.

1575: For the additive systematics, it is better to determine the level at

1576: which they would bias the cosmological results than to attempt to fit

1577: a model.  \citet{AmaraRefregier} is a good example of this approach.

1578: 

1579: Since the analysis framework is independent of models for dark energy,

1580: gravity, power-spectrum evolution, or galaxy bias, we get a

1581: stripped-down look at what parameters are truly constrained by the

1582: data, and what nuisance functions must be modeled in order to extract

1583: the cosmological information.  There is a substantial suite of biases

1584: and correlation functions involved in understanding the full survey

1585: data.  In other work these have been ignored, or have been quantified

1586: by reference to halo occupation models \citep{HJ04,CvdBMLMY}.

1587: Here we introduce generic functions for bias and calibration nuisance

1588: functions that are not based on any

1589: particular physical model.  

1590: 

1591: We implement one possible model for the evolution of the

1592: lensing-potential power spectrum, based on General Relativity but

1593: allowing for failure of the growth equation.  It is straightforward to

1594: implement other potential deviations from General Relativity.  In the

1595: current implementation, the end result of the Fisher analysis is a

1596: forecast of the ability to constrain the functions $D_A(z)$ and

1597: $g_\phi(z)$.

1598: 

1599: Since the analysis must be discretized in redshift and angular scale

1600: in order to be feasible, we investigated the bin sizes or bandwidths

1601: of nuisance functions that should be chosen.  We find that $\approx 3$

1602: bins per decade of angular scale suffice to extract all information

1603: (apart from baryon acoustic oscillations), and that nuisance functions

1604: should be specified no finer than this.  Nuisance functions for

1605: power-spectrum theory errors and for shear and magnification-bias

1606: calibration errors can be specified coarsely in redshift space

1607: ($\Delta \ln a \approx 1$), but the galaxy biases, correlations, and

1608: intrinsic-alignments must be modeled with potentially finer structure

1609: in redshift ($\Delta \ln a \approx 0.1$) to immunize against potential

1610: astrophysical systematics.

1611: 

1612: In future papers we will use this framework and its implementation to

1613: investigate the requirements for spectroscopic calibration of

1614: photo-z's in large lensing surveys, and other practical issues.  As a

1615: simple first application of our framework, we have shown here that

1616: power-spectrum theory uncertainty does not significantly degrade the

1617: cosmological power of a nominal lensing survey at $10<\ell<10^4$.

1618: Non-Gaussian statistics are a much more important factor to consider.

1619: 

1620: {\tt C++} Code to implement Fisher forecasting using this framework has been

1621: written and runs quickly on desktop computers despite the large number

1622: of free parameters in these general models.  Interested parties should

1623: contact the author for access to the code.

1624: 

1625: \acknowledgments

1626: This work is supported in this work by grant AST-0607667 from the

1627: National Science Foundation, Department of Energy grant

1628: DOE-DE-FG02-95ER40893, and NASA grant 

1629: BEFS-04-0014-0018.  I thank Bhuvnesh Jain, Zhaoming Ma, Chris Hirata,

1630: Ravi Sheth, Hu Zhan,

1631: and the members of the Dark Energy Task Force for helpful

1632: conversations during the long gestation of this work.

1633: 

1634: 

1635: \appendix

1636: \section{Parametric functional forms for nuisance variables}

1637: \label{functions}

1638: In modeling an experiment, we often encounter some systematic error

1639: associated with a nuisance variable $f$ about which we have little {\it a

1640:   priori} knowledge.  We would like to fit some parametric form to

1641: this variable, but would like a form that is flexible enough to

1642: describe any ``reasonable'' behavior the function might exhibit.  We

1643: also want to conveniently relate the number and prior probabilities

1644: for the parameters to the kind of variation that $f$ might exhibit.

1645: A parametric description of some nuisance function $f$ defined over a variable

1646: $x\in[-1,1]$ would ideally have the following properties:

1647: \begin{enumerate}

1648: \item $f(x)$ has a variable number $N$ of controlling parameters $\{a_0,

1649:   a_2, \ldots, a_{N-1}\}$ such that any continuous differentiable function

1650:   $F(x)$ can be approximated to any desired accuracy with a

1651:   sufficiently large choice of $N$.

1652: \item We can draw $\{a_j\}$ from independent

1653:   Gaussian distributions of zero mean and widths $\{\sigma_j\}$, with the

1654:   result that ${\rm Var}[f(x)]$ is

1655:   independent of $x$.  In other words, the nuisance value $f$ has a

1656:   uniform and well-determined variance when we apply a simple diagonal

1657:   Gaussian prior to the parameter set $\{a_j\}$.

1658: \end{enumerate}

1659: A Fourier decomposition, $f = \sum (a_j \sin j\pi x + b_j \cos j\pi

1660: x)$, exhibits these qualities, but converges poorly when $f(-1)\ne

1661: f(+1)$.  

1662: 

1663: \subsection{Linearly interpolated functions}

1664: Another approach is linear interpolation: choosing a spacing $\Delta x

1665: = 2/(N-1)$, we define $a_i$ as the value of $f$ at $x_i=i\Delta x

1666: -1$.  At some other $x_i<x<x_{i+1}$, we define

1667: \begin{equation}

1668: f(x) = wa_i + (1-w) a_{i+1}, \qquad w={x_{i+1} - x \over \Delta x}.

1669: \end{equation}

1670: If we assign an independent Gaussian prior of width $\sigma_a$ to each

1671: $a_i$, then by definition we have ${\rm Var} [f(x)] = \sigma_a^2$ if $x$

1672: coincides with a node.  But the variance of $f$ is not quite

1673: homogeneous: it drops to ${\rm Var} [f(x)] = \sigma_a^2/2$ when $x$ is

1674: halfway between two nodes.  If we want the {\em mean} variance of

1675: $f(x)$ over the interval $x\in[-1,1]$ to equal $\sigma_f^2$, then the

1676: variance of the prior on each node needs to be $\sigma_a^2=3\sigma_f^2/2$.

1677: 

1678: \subsection{Legendre polynomials}

1679: Polynomial expansions are also commonly used to model nuisance

1680: functions. The simplistic form $f(x)=\sum a_i x^i$ results in

1681: extremely non-uniform variance for $f$ with diagonal prior on

1682: $\{a_i\}$ and is hence inappropriate for our purpose.  A better

1683: choice is to expand in Legendre polynomials $P_n(x)$, which are orthogonal over

1684: $[-1,1]$.  We define

1685: \begin{equation}

1686: f(x) = \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} a_i P_i(\nu x).

1687: \end{equation}

1688: Recall that the Legendre polynomials satisfy $P_0=1, P_1=x,

1689: (n+1)P_{n+1}=(2n+1)xP_n-nP_{n-1}$.

1690: 

1691: We wish to choose priors $\{\sigma_i\}$ on $\{a_i\}$ that cause

1692: the variance of $f(x)$ be as uniform as possible for

1693: $x\in[-1,1]$.  We have not found a way to attain perfect uniformity in $x$

1694: with polynomial interpolation, however the following scheme gets

1695: usefully close.  We discover numerically that

1696: \begin{equation}

1697: \lim_{N\rightarrow\infty} {1 \over N} \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} P_n^2(\nu x) (2i+1)

1698: = {2 \over \pi} \left(1-\nu^2x^2\right)^{-1/2}.

1699: \end{equation}

1700: This implies that, if we set $\sigma_i = \sqrt{(2i+1)\pi/2N}$, then in

1701: the limit of large $N$ we will obtain ${\rm Var} [f(x)] =

1702: \left(1-\nu^2x^2\right)^{-1/2}.$  For $\nu=1$ this would diverge at

1703: the ends of our nuisance function's interval.  If, however, we choose

1704: $\nu=0.9$, the RMS is only $\approx1.5\times$ larger at the

1705: endpoints than at $x=0$.  Over the $[-1,1]$ interval, the mean

1706: variance is $(\sin^{-1} \nu)/\nu$.  Hence if we wish to have a

1707: function with $\langle {\rm Var} f(x) \rangle_x = \sigma^2_f$, we set

1708: the priors on the Legendre coefficients to be

1709: \begin{equation}

1710: \sigma_i = \sigma_f \sqrt{(2i+1)\pi \nu \over 2N \sin^{-1}\nu}.

1711: \end{equation}

1712: 

1713: \subsection{Standard multidimensional functions}

1714: The Fourier, linear-interpolation, and Legendre-polynomial functional

1715: forms can each be extended to $>1$ dimensions in straightforward

1716: fashion.  In the lens modeling, we need functions of these

1717: dimensions:

1718: \begin{enumerate}

1719: \item Comoving wavenumber or physical scale: $x_1=\ln k$;

1720: \item Redshift $z$: more precisely we will use the variable $x_2=\ln

1721:   (1+z)$;

1722: \item Photometric redshift error $\Delta z$; more precisely, our code

1723:   uses the variable $x_3 = \Delta \ln (1+z) = \ln[(1+z_\alpha)/(1+z_i)]$ for

1724:   subset $\alpha i$.

1725: \end{enumerate}

1726: 

1727: \subsubsection{$kz$ form}

1728: For functions over the $(x_1,x_2)$ space we use a simple

1729: two-dimensional version of interpolation between values on a

1730: rectangular grid.  The power-spectrum theory error $\delta\ln P$ uses

1731: this form, as do the $K^{gg}(k,z)$ and $K^{\kappa\kappa}(k,z)$

1732: nuisance functions.  The only complication of note is that the nodal

1733: point $a_{ij}$ should have a prior with variance

1734: $\sigma^2_a=(3/2)^2\sigma^2_f$ if the output function is to have

1735: variance $\sigma^2_f$.  The factor of $(3/2)^2$ is needed to

1736: counteract the reduced variance when interpolating between grid points.

1737: 

1738: The $kz$ nuisance function is specified by:

1739: \begin{itemize}

1740: \item the spacing $\Delta x_1 = \Delta \ln k$ of the nodes for

1741:   linearly interpolation in $x_1$;

1742: \item the spacing $\Delta x_2 = \Delta \ln (1+z)$ of the nodes for

1743:   linearly interpolation in $x_2$;

1744: \item the RMS variation $\sigma_f$ of the function 

1745:   allowed under the prior, which can depend on $x_1$ and $x_2$.

1746: \item the fiducial dependence of $f$ on $x_1$ and $x_2$.

1747: \end{itemize}

1748: 

1749: \subsubsection{$z\Delta z$ form}

1750: For nuisance variables over the $(x_2,x_3)$ space ($z$ and $\Delta

1751: z$), we adopt the following strategy:

1752: we choose to have variation over $x_3$ be described by

1753: polynomials since we usually define the range of non-catastrophic

1754: photo-z errors to be 

1755: bounded to some range $|x_3| \le \Delta_{\rm max}$.  We define

1756: the ``$z\Delta z$'' functional form as follows:

1757: \begin{equation}

1758: f(x_2,x_3) = \sum_{i=0}^{N-1} a_i(x_2) P_i(\nu x_3 / \Delta_{\rm max}).

1759: \end{equation}

1760: The Legendre coefficients are in turn defined to be linearly

1761: interpolated between a series of values $a_{ij}$ at redshift nodes

1762: $\{\ln (1+z_j)\}$.  The $a_{ij}$ become parameters of the model.  

1763: 

1764: The fiducial and prior values for the $i=0$ terms (constant in $x_3$)

1765: are treated differently than the $i>0$ terms.  We might, for

1766: example, expect some nuisance functions to vary strongly with $x_2$

1767: (nominal redshift) but only slightly with $x_3$ (photo-z error) at

1768: fixed $x_2$.  

1769: 

1770: We specify the total RMS fluctuation in $f$ allowed

1771: by the prior to be $\sigma_f$. But we also specify the fraction {\tt

1772:   VarFracDZ} of the variance that is due to dependence on $x_3$. If

1773: we define

1774: \begin{equation}

1775: \bar f(x_2) \equiv \int_{-\Delta_{\rm max}}^{+\Delta_{\rm max}} dx_3\,f(x_2,x_3) /

1776: 2\Delta_{\rm max},

1777: \end{equation}

1778: then we aim to achieve

1779: \begin{eqnarray}

1780: {\rm Var} [\bar f(x_2)] & = & \sigma^2_f \left(1-{\tt VarFracDZ}\right) \\

1781: {\rm Var} \left[f(x_2,x_3)-\bar f(x_2)\right] & = & \sigma^2_f \left({\tt

1782:     VarFracDZ}\right).

1783: \end{eqnarray}

1784: 

1785: This is achieved approximately by setting the priors on the constant terms as

1786: \begin{equation}

1787: \label{ap1}

1788: \sigma^2_{0j} = \frac{3}{2} \sigma^2_f \left(1-{\tt VarFracDZ}\right) 

1789: \end{equation}

1790: and the $x_3$-dependent terms as

1791: \begin{equation}

1792: \label{ap2}

1793: \sigma^2_{ij} = \frac{3}{2} \sigma^2_f \left({\tt VarFracDZ}\right) 

1794: \sqrt{(2i+1)\pi \nu \over 2N \sin^{-1}\nu}.

1795: \end{equation}

1796: 

1797: The RMS prior variation $\sigma_f$ can be made a function of $x_2$

1798: without loss of generality.

1799: We typically take fiducial values of $a_{ij}=0$ for $i>0$ in our

1800: nuisance functions, \ie no fiducial dependence upon $\Delta z$.

1801: 

1802: To summarize, the $z\Delta z$ nuisance function is specified by:

1803: \begin{itemize}

1804: \item the order $N$ of the polynomial in $x_3$;

1805: \item the maximum range $\Delta_{\rm max}$ of applicability in the

1806:   $x_3$ axis;

1807: \item the spacing $\Delta x_2 = \Delta \ln (1+z)$ of the nodes for

1808:   linearly interpolation in $x_2$;

1809: \item the RMS variation $\sigma_f$ of the function allowed under the

1810:   prior, which can depend on $x_2$;

1811: \item the fraction {\tt VarFracDZ} of this variance that is due to

1812:   $x_3$ ($\Delta z$) dependence;

1813: \item the fiducial dependence of $f$ on $x_2$.

1814: \end{itemize}

1815: 

1816: \subsubsection{$kz\Delta z$ form}

1817: The bias and correlation coefficients can, most generally, depend on

1818: scale ($x_1$) as well as subset $(x_2,x_3)$, so we generalize to the

1819: ``$kz\Delta z$'' functional form:

1820: \begin{equation}

1821: f(x_1,x_2,x_3) = \sum a_i(x_1,x_2) P_i(x_3).

1822: \end{equation}

1823: The coefficients

1824: $a_i$ are linearly interpolated

1825: between nodes in the two-dimensional space $(x_1,x_2)$.  Thus the free

1826: parameters of this model become the Legendre coefficients $a_{ijk}$.

1827: As for the $z\Delta z$ function, we specify the prior by the overall

1828: mean RMS variation $\sigma_f$ (which can be a function of $x_2$ and

1829: $x_3$), plus the {\tt VarFracDZ} specifying how much of the variance

1830: is manifested as dependence on $\Delta z$.  The formulae for the

1831: priors $\sigma_{ijk}$ on the nodal coefficients are derived exactly as

1832: in Equations~(\ref{ap1}) and (\ref{ap2}), except that we now need

1833: factors of $(3/2)^2$ to account for the reduced variance when

1834: interpolating in two dimensions.

1835: 

1836: The $kz\Delta z$ function thus requires all of the specifications as

1837: the $z\Delta z$ function, plus a spacing $\Delta\ln k$ for nodes in

1838: the $x_1$ axis.

1839: 

1840: \newpage

1841: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1842: 

1843: \bibitem[Albrecht et al.(2006)]{DETF} 

1844: Albrecht, A., et al.\ 2006, Report of the Dark Energy Task Force,

1845: arXiv:astro-ph/0609591  

1846: 

1847: \bibitem[Amara \& Refregier(2007)]{AmaraRefregier}

1848: Amara, A., \& Refregier, A.\ 2007, arXiv:0710.5171 

1849: 

1850: \bibitem[Bernstein(2006)]{curvature} 

1851: Bernstein, G.\ 2006, \apj, 637, 598 

1852: 

1853: \bibitem[Bernstein \& Jain(2004)]{BJ04}

1854: Bernstein, G. \& Jain, B., 2004, \apj, 600, 17 [BJ04]

1855: 

1856: \bibitem[Bernstein \& Norberg(2002)]{BernsteinNorberg}

1857: Bernstein, G.~M., \& Norberg, P.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 733 

1858: 

1859: \bibitem[Blandford et al.(1991)]{Blandford91} 

1860: Blandford, R.~D., Saust, A.~B., Brainerd, T.~G., \& Villumsen, J.~V.\

1861: 1991, \mnras, 251, 600  

1862: 

1863: \bibitem[Bridle \& King(2007)]{BridleKing} 

1864: Bridle, S., \& King, L.\ 2007, New Journal of Physics, 9, 444 

1865: 

1866: \bibitem[Cacciato \etal(2008)]{CvdBMLMY}

1867: Cacciato, M. \etal\ (2008), arXiv:0807.4934

1868: 

1869: \bibitem[Cooray \& Hu(2001)]{CoorayHu01} 

1870: Cooray, A., \& Hu, W.\ 2001, \apj, 554, 56 

1871: 

1872: \bibitem[Croft \& Metzler(2000)]{CroftMetzler} 

1873: Croft, R.~A.~C., \& Metzler, C.~A.\ 2000, \apj, 545, 561 

1874: 

1875: \bibitem[Eisenstein \& Hu(1999)]{EH} Eisenstein, D.~J., \& 

1876: Hu, W.\ 1999, \apj, 511, 5 

1877:  

1878: \bibitem[Faltenbacher et al.(2007)]{FLMvdBYJPM} Faltenbacher, A., 

1879: Li, C., Mao, S., van den Bosch, F.~C., Yang, X., Jing, Y.~P., Pasquali, A., 

1880: \& Mo, H.~J.\ 2007, \apjl, 662, L71 

1881: 

1882: \bibitem[Goldberg \& Bacon(2005)]{BaconFlex} 

1883: Goldberg, D.~M., \& Bacon, D.~J.\ 2005, \apj, 619, 741 

1884: 

1885: \bibitem[Hennawi \& Spergel(2005)]{Hennawi}

1886: Hennawi, J. F. \& Spergel,  D. N.\ 2005, \apj, 624, 59

1887: 

1888: \bibitem[Heymans et al.\@(2006)]{STEP1}

1889: Heymans, C., et al., 2006, \mnras\ 368 1323

1890: 

1891: \bibitem[Hirata et al.(2004)]{Hetal04} 

1892: Hirata, C.~M., et al.\ 2004, \mnras, 353, 529

1893: 

1894: % Intrinsic-alignment paper:

1895: \bibitem[Hirata \& Seljak(2004)]{Hirata2} 

1896: Hirata, C.~M., \& Seljak, U.\ 2004, \prd, 70, 063526 

1897: 

1898: %Calibration uncertainties:

1899: \bibitem[Hirata \& Seljak(2003)]{HS03}

1900: Hirata, C.~M., \& Seljak, U.\ 2003, \prd, 67, 043001 

1901: 

1902: \bibitem[Hu(1999)]{Hu} 

1903: Hu, W.\ 1999, \apjl, 522, L21 

1904: 

1905: \bibitem[Hu \& Jain(2004)]{HJ04}

1906: Hu, W, \& Jain, B., 2004, \prd, 70, 043009 

1907: 

1908: \bibitem[Hu \& Okamoto(2002)]{HO02}

1909: Hu, W. \& Okamoto, T.\ 2002, \apj, 574, 566 

1910: 

1911: \bibitem[Huterer et al.\@(2006)]{HTBJ}

1912: Huterer, D., Takada, M., Bernstein, G., \& Jain, B. 2006, \mnras, 366 101

1913: 

1914: \bibitem[Ishak \etal(2004)]{Ishak04}

1915: Ishak, M., Hirata, C. M., McDonald, P., \& Seljak, U. 20004, \prd, 69,

1916: 083514

1917: 

1918: \bibitem[Jain(2002)]{Jainmag} 

1919: Jain, B.\ 2002, \apjl, 580, L3 

1920: 

1921: \bibitem[Jain \& Seljak(1997)]{JS97} 

1922: Jain, B., \& Seljak, U.\ 1997, \apj, 484, 560 

1923: 

1924: \bibitem[Jain \& Taylor(2003)]{JainTaylor}

1925: Jain, B., \& Taylor, A.\ 2003, \prl, 91, 141302 

1926: 

1927: \bibitem[Jain et al.(2007)]{ConnollyJain} 

1928: Jain, B., Connolly, A., \& Takada, M.\ 2007, Journal of Cosmology and

1929: Astro-Particle Physics, 3, 13  

1930: 

1931: \bibitem[Jing \etal(2006)]{Jing}

1932: Jing, Y. P., Zhang, P., Lin, W. P., Gao, L., \& Springel, V. 2006,

1933: \apjl, 640, L119

1934: 

1935: \bibitem[Kaiser(1992)]{Kaiser92} 

1936: Kaiser, N.\ 1992, \apj, 388, 272 

1937: 

1938: \bibitem[King \& Schneider(2003)]{KingSchneider} 

1939: King, L.~J., \& Schneider, P.\ 2003, \aap, 398, 23 

1940: 

1941: \bibitem[Knox, Song, \& Tyson(2006)]{KST}

1942: Knox, L., Song, Y.-S., \& Tyson, J. A. 2006, \prd, 74, 023512 

1943: 

1944: \bibitem[Komatsu et al.(2008)]{WMAP5} 

1945: Komatsu, E., et al.\ 2008, arXiv:0803.0547 

1946: 

1947: \bibitem[Lee \& Pen(2008)]{LeePen}

1948: Lee, J. \& Pen, U.-L.\ 2008, arXiv:0807.1538

1949: 

1950: \bibitem[Ma \& Bernstein(2008)]{MaBernstein}

1951: Ma, Z., \& Bernstein, G.\ 2008, \apj, 682, 39 

1952: 

1953: \bibitem[Ma, Hu, \& Huterer(2006)]{MaHutererHu}

1954: Ma, Z., Hu, W., \& Huterer, D.\ 2006, \apj, 636, 21 

1955: 

1956: \bibitem[Mandelbaum et al.(2006)]{Mandelbaum06} 

1957: Mandelbaum, R., Hirata, C.~M., Ishak, M., Seljak, U., 

1958: \& Brinkmann, J.\ 2006, \mnras, 367, 611 

1959: 

1960: \bibitem[Marian \& Bernstein(2006)]{Laura}

1961: Marian, L., \& Bernstein, G.~M.\ 2006, \prd, 73, 123525 

1962: 

1963: \bibitem[Metcalf \& White(2007)]{MW07} 

1964: Metcalf, R.~B., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 2007, \mnras, 381, 447 

1965: 

1966: \bibitem[Miralda-Escud\'{e}(1991)]{Jordi}

1967: Miralda-Escud\'{e}, J.\ 1991, \apj, 380, 1

1968: 

1969: \bibitem[Newman(2008)]{Newman} 

1970: Newman, J.~A.\ 2008, arXiv:0805.1409 

1971: 

1972: % 21 cm lensing

1973: \bibitem[Pen(2004)]{Pen04} 

1974: Pen, U.-L.\ 2004, New Astronomy, 9, 417 

1975: 

1976: \bibitem[Schneider et al.(2006)]{SKZC} 

1977: Schneider, M., Knox, L., Zhan, H., \& Connolly, A.\ 2006, \apj, 651, 14 

1978: 

1979: \bibitem[Smith \etal(2002)]{Smith}

1980: Smith, R. E., \etal, 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1311 

1981: 

1982: \bibitem[Song \& Knox(2004)]{SK04}

1983: Song, Y.-S. \& Knox, L. 2004, 

1984: 

1985: \bibitem[Takada \& Jain(2004)]{TJ04}

1986: Takada, M., \& Jain, B.\ 2004, \mnras, 348, 897 

1987: 

1988: \bibitem[Tegmark, Taylor, \& Heavens(1997)]{TTH97}

1989: Tegmark, M., Taylor, A., Heavens, A., 1997, \apj, 480, 22

1990: 

1991: \bibitem[Wang, Khoury \& Haiman(2004)]{Wang}

1992: S. Wang, J. Khoury, Z. Haiman et al.\ 2004, \prd, 70, 123008

1993: 

1994: \bibitem[Zahn \& Zaldarriaga(2006)]{ZZ06} 

1995: Zahn, O., \& Zaldarriaga, M.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 922 

1996: 

1997: \bibitem[Zhan(2006)]{Zhan06}

1998: Zhan, H.\ 2006, Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, 8, 8 

1999: 

2000: \bibitem[Zhan \& Knox(2004)]{ZhanKnox}

2001: Zhan, H., \& Knox, L.\ 2004, \apjl, 616, L75 

2002: 

2003: \bibitem[Zhang, Hui, \& Stebbins(2003)]{Zhang}

2004: Zhang, J., Hui, L., \& Stebbins, A. 2003, astro-ph/0312348

2005: 

2006: \end{thebibliography}

2007: 

2008: \end{document}

2009: