1: \documentclass[preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %\usepackage{epsfig,apjfonts}
4:
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6:
7: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
11:
12: \newcommand{\bft}{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \pagestyle{plain}
17:
18: \title{Diagnosing space telescope misalignment and jitter using stellar images}
19: \author{Zhaoming Ma{\footnote{Email: mazh@sas.upenn.edu}}, Gary Bernstein}
20: \affil{Department of Physics \& Astronomy,\\
21: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104}
22:
23: \author{Alan Weinstein}
24: \affil{Department of Physics, \\
25: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125}
26: \and
27: \author{Michael Sholl}
28: \affil{Space Science Laboratory, \\
29: University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720}
30:
31: \begin{abstract}
32:
33: Accurate knowledge of the telescope's point spread function (PSF) is
34: essential for the weak gravitational lensing measurements that hold
35: great promise for cosmological constraints. For space telescopes, the
36: PSF may vary with time due to thermal drifts in the telescope
37: structure, and/or due to jitter in the spacecraft pointing
38: (ground-based telescopes have additional sources of variation).
39: We describe and
40: simulate a procedure for using the images of the stars in each exposure to
41: determine the misalignment and jitter parameters, and reconstruct the
42: PSF at any point in that exposure's field of view.
43: The simulation uses the design of the
44: SNAP{\footnote{http://snap.lbl.gov}} telescope.
45: Stellar-image data in a typical exposure determines secondary-mirror
46: positions as precisely as $20\,{\rm nm}$.
47: The PSF ellipticities and size, which are the quantities of interest for
48: weak lensing are determined to $4.0 \times 10^{-4}$ and $2.2 \times 10^{-4}$
49: accuracies respectively in each exposure,
50: sufficient to meet weak-lensing requirements. We show that, for the case of a
51: space telescope, the PSF estimation errors scale inversely with the
52: square root of the total number of photons collected from all the
53: usable stars in the exposure.
54:
55: \end{abstract}
56: \keywords{cosmology -- gravitational lensing, large-scale structure of the
57: universe}
58:
59: \section{Introduction}
60: \label{sec:intro}
61:
62: The accelerated expansion of the universe is one of the most puzzling
63: astrophysical discovery of the century.
64: The proposed explanations are dark energy, modified gravity
65: and feedback from density fluctuations. To explore the mystery, a few
66: large astronomical surveys are underway
67: (DES{\footnote{http://www.darkenergysurvey.org}},
68: ACT{\footnote{http://www.physics.princeton.edu/act}},
69: SPT{\footnote{http://pole.uchicago.edu}})
70: or in planning stages (SNAP,
71: DESTINY{\footnote{http://destiny.asu.edu}},
72: LSST{\footnote{http://www.lsst.org}},
73: EUCLID{\footnote{The merger of DUNE (http://www.dune-mission.net) and
74: SPACE \citep{SPACE}}}).
75: The sensitivity of these surveys to the expansion
76: of the universe comes from both cosmological distances and growth of density
77: perturbations as a function of the cosmic time or redshift. The probes
78: utilized are Type-Ia supernova, weak gravitational lensing (WL), baryon
79: acoustic oscillations, galaxy cluster counting (selected by optical or using
80: Sunyave-Zeldovic effect), and the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect (ISW).
81: Among all these probes, weak lensing is potentially the most rewarding
82: one if systematics are well under control. The dominating systematics
83: for weak lensing measurements include galaxy shape measurement errors
84: \citep{Huterer06,STEP1,STEP2, Stabenau07, Amara07},
85: photometric redshift errors \citep{Huterer06, Maetal06, MaBernstein08},
86: uncertainties of the matter power spectrum \citep{Huterer05, Bernstein08},
87: galaxy intrinsic alignment \citep{King02, King03, Heymans03, King05,
88: Mandelbaum06,Heymans06,Hirata07, Bridle07, Lee08, Joachimi08},
89: and higher order effects such as reduced shear \citep{White05, Dodelson06,
90: Shapiro08},
91: Born approximation \citep{Cooray02, Shapiro06},
92: and source clustering \citep{Bernardeau98, Hamana01, Schneider02}.
93:
94: This paper is concerned with reducing the systematic errors in galaxy
95: shape measurements. For future weak lensing surveys, the tolerable
96: RMS multiplicative calibration error on WL shear is about $10^{-3}$
97: \citep{Huterer06,Amara07}.
98: Additive errors in galaxy shear should also be held to $<10^{-3.5}$.
99: Mis-estimation of the PSF will propagate into systematic errors in the
100: shear. The size of the PSF must therefore be determined to
101: better than 1 part in $10^3$ to avoid unacceptable multiplicative
102: shear error; likewise the PSF ellipticity must be known to $10^{-3}$ or
103: better to avoid unacceptable additive shear systematic
104: \citep{PaulinHenriksson}.
105:
106: Unfortunately the PSF of real telescopes changes with time, as well as
107: with color and field position.
108: Effects that could change the PSF include thermal expansion of mirrors
109: and support structures; pointing jitter due to structural vibrations
110: and tracking errors; for ground-based telescopes there are
111: additionally gravity loading, atmospheric distortions, and wind
112: loading.
113: % The engineers will try their best to reduce the above effects, but
114: % there are limits to what the engineers can do given finite resources.
115: Careful engineering of the telescope, mount, and housing can minimize
116: these effects, but there are limits to what can be achieved with finite
117: resources.
118: Even for a space telescope it is prohibitively expensive to guarantee
119: PSF stability to $<1$ part in $10^3$.
120: On the other hand there will be stars in each image to diagnose the
121: PSF behavior during each exposure. Recall that the WL analysis
122: requires part-per-thousand {\em knowledge} of the PSF at each location
123: and each
124: exposure, not necessarily that the PSF be {\em constant} to this level.
125: In this work, we study how well the
126: PSF can be constrained using stellar images, using the proposed
127: space-based SNAP telescope as a case study.
128:
129:
130: The outline of the paper is as follows. We present an overview of the
131: task we are trying to accomplish in \S \ref{sec:task}. In \S \ref{sec:PSF},
132: we provide details of the modeling of the SNAP PSF. We describe the fitting
133: procedure for the misalignment and jitter parameters in \S \ref{sec:procedure}.
134: The results of the fit are presented in \S \ref{sec:result} and we conclude in
135: \S \ref{sec:conclude}.
136:
137: %\section{Description of the Task}
138: \section{Stellar ``Morphometry"}
139: \label{sec:task}
140:
141: Weak lensing measurements aim to extract a map of the cosmic shear from
142: the coherent distortions in the shapes of many distant galaxies
143: \citep{Kaiser98, Bartelmann99}. Observed galaxy shapes are distorted by the
144: telescope PSF. To lowest order, this can be corrected if the PSF across
145: the telescope field of view is known. The PSF can be inferred from the
146: observed shapes of foreground stars of suitable magnitude. Because the PSF
147: will drift over time, it is desirable to measure the PSF across the field
148: of view for every exposure, using the stars that are interspersed throughout
149: the image along with the distant galaxies of interest. We refer to this
150: procedure as "stellar morphometry".
151:
152: \subsection{Quantities of Interest}
153: The requirements for a weak-lensing survey can be most simply stated
154: as limits on the tolerable error in the second moments of the PSF. We
155: will measure the Gaussian-weighted moments defined as the zeroth moment
156: \be
157: M_0 = \int dx\,dy\,PSF(x,y)W(x,y),
158: \label{eqn:m0}
159: \ee
160: the first moments
161: \be
162: \bar{x} = {1 \over {M_0}} \int dx\,dy\,x\,PSF(x,y)W(x,y) \,,
163: \ee
164: \be
165: \bar{y} = {1 \over {M_0}} \int dx\,dy\,y\,PSF(x,y)W(x,y) \,,
166: \ee
167: and the second moments
168: \be
169: P_{xx} = {1 \over {M_0}} \int dx\,dy\,(x-\bar{x})^2 PSF(x,y)W(x,y) \,,
170: \ee
171: \be
172: P_{yy} = {1 \over {M_0}} \int dx\,dy\,(y-\bar{y})^2 PSF(x,y)W(x,y) \,,
173: \ee
174: \be
175: P_{xy} = {1 \over {M_0}} \int dx\,dy\,(x-\bar{x})(y-\bar{y}) PSF(x,y)W(x,y) \,.
176: \label{eqn:pxy}
177: \ee
178: These are calculated under a weight function which we take to be
179: \be
180: W(x,y)={\rm exp} \left \{-{{(x-\bar{x})^2 + (y-\bar{y})^2} \over {2 \sigma_{mom}^2}} \right \} \,.
181: \ee
182: The width of the weighting Gaussian is chosen to be two
183: times the Airy radius,
184: \be
185: \sigma_{mom} = 2 \times 1.22 {{\lambda f} \over {D}} \,,
186: \ee
187: where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the incident light, $f$ is the focal
188: length and $D$ is the telescope aperture.
189: In analogy, we can write down the third moments of the PSF,
190: $P_{xxx}$, $P_{xxy}$, $P_{xyy}$, and $P_{yyy}$.
191: %We leave details to the reader.
192:
193: We also compute quantities derived from the second moments.
194: The ellipticities and stellar size are
195: \be
196: e_1={{P_{xx} - P_{yy}} \over {P_{xx} + P_{yy}}} \,; \,
197: e_2={{2 P_{xy}} \over {P_{xx} + P_{yy}}} \,; \,
198: \sigma_\star^2={{P_{xx} + P_{yy}} \over {2}} \,.
199: \label{eqn:es}
200: \ee
201: These quantities appear in many approaches to weak-lensing shear
202: measurement [\cite{STEP1} and references therein]. The true PSF of an
203: exposure will depend on the field position of the star $(x_\star,y_\star)$
204: yielding $e_1(x_\star,y_\star)$, $e_2(x_\star,y_\star)$,
205: $\sigma^2_\star(x_\star,y_\star)$. Our goal is to produce an accurate model
206: estimate $\hat e_1(x_\star,y_\star),$ etc. We will evaluate our success by
207: calculating the RMS residual errors in the ellipticity models,
208: \be
209: \left(e_1^{\rm RMS}\right)^2 \equiv
210: \left\langle \left[e_1(x_\star,y_\star)-\hat e_1(x_\star,y_\star)\right]^2\right\rangle,
211: \label{eqn:e1RMS}
212: \ee
213: \be
214: \left(e_2^{\rm RMS}\right)^2 \equiv
215: \left\langle \left[e_2(x_\star,y_\star)-\hat e_2(x_\star,y_\star)\right]^2\right\rangle,
216: \label{eqn:e2RMS}
217: \ee
218: and the fractional residual error in the PSF size,
219: \begin{equation}
220: \left(\sigma_\star^{\rm RMS}\right)^2 \equiv
221: { \left\langle \left[\sigma_\star(x_\star,y_\star)-\hat
222: \sigma_\star(x_\star,y_\star)\right]^2\right\rangle \over \langle
223: \sigma_\star^2 \rangle}.
224: \label{eqn:sigmaRMS}
225: \end{equation}
226:
227: \subsection{Parametric Models}
228: If the physical state of the telescope can be described by a small
229: number of time-variable parameters $\{p_i\}$, then the PSF is some
230: function $PSF(x,y | p_i,x_\star,y_\star)$ of focal-plane position,
231: telescope state and the field position of the star.
232: We note that a great advantage of space-based observatories for WL work
233: is that the stability of their environment allows us to engineer a
234: telescope for which only a small number of degrees of freedom will
235: vary significantly. For the SNAP telescope, the engineering
236: specifications are that all optical systems are stable to well below
237: the WL specification, except for:
238: \begin{itemize}
239: \item The alignment of the secondary mirror, which may vary due to
240: imperfect performance of the feedback system that stabilizes the
241: temperature of the mirror support structure;
242: \item The telescope line of sight (LOS) may vary during an exposure
243: and smear the PSF due to noise and the finite bandwidth of the
244: attitude control system (ACS) or due to high-frequency reaction wheel
245: vibrations that transfer through the structure to optical elements,
246: particularly the secondary mirror.
247: % The pointing of the telescope, which may vary during an exposure
248: % and smear the images, due to noise in the attitude control system
249: % (ACS), or to high-frequency vibrations that transfer to optical
250: % elements, particularly the secondary mirror.
251: \end{itemize}
252: In \S\ref{sec:PSF} we describe in detail the model we adopt for these
253: disturbances.
254:
255: Ground-based telescopes pose a more difficult challenge for PSF
256: modeling, because they have a very large number of time-varying
257: degrees of freedom. Indeed the atmospheric distortions have infinite
258: degrees of freedom, formally. Our analysis thus cannot be considered
259: valid for ground-based observatories. \cite{Jarvis04} propose instead
260: that a principal-components analysis be performed on the ensemble of
261: PSF patterns observed by the telescope, so that the coefficients of
262: some finite number of principal components become the parameters for
263: the PSF model.
264: \cite{Jain06} discuss how changes in Seidel aberrations would be
265: manifested as PSF-change patterns, and might serve as a parameter set
266: for PSF modeling. The success of these methods will depend upon how
267: well-behaved the telescope and atmosphere are, particularly whether
268: the optically significant perturbations are described by a small
269: number of variables. An alternative approach, applied by
270: \cite{Wittman05} to PSF ellipticities induced by the atmosphere, is
271: to determine by {\it a priori} analysis that the disturbance will be
272: below the WL threshold.
273:
274: %\subsection{Stellar ``Morphometry''}
275: \subsection{Simulations}
276:
277: We simulate the following strategy:
278: \begin{enumerate}
279: \item Locate the stellar images in each exposure.
280: \item Measure PSF quantities at each star location; in our case, the
281: second and third Gaussian-weighted moments.
282: \item Find the PSF parameters $\{\hat p_i\}$ that best reproduce the
283: stellar data.
284: \item Use the $\{\hat p_i\}$ and the PSF model to derive the desired
285: $\hat e_1$, etc., at any location in the focal plane.
286: \end{enumerate}
287: In the simulation we can then evaluate the RMS residual errors of the
288: PSF model.
289: %The use of PSF shapes to constrain telescope parameters has been
290: %christened ``morphometry.''
291:
292: %In the simple case where the PSF has no spatial variation,
293: In the simple case where the PSF does not depend on the field position of stars,
294: we can
295: consider this procedure to be, essentially, averaging the measured
296: PSFs (and moments) of the observed stars. In this case, we expected
297: the error on the PSF moments to be determined by the (quadrature) sum
298: of the signal-to-noise ($S/N$) levels of all the available stars. In
299: particular, if all the stars are dominated by Poisson noise from
300: source photons, then $S/N=\sqrt N_\gamma$, where $N_\gamma$ is the
301: total number of photons collected from all usable stars in the
302: exposure. We can therefore expect that
303: \be
304: e_1^{\rm RMS} \approx e_2^{\rm RMS} \approx \sqrt{2} \sigma_\star^{\rm RMS}
305: = \alpha N_\gamma^{-1/2}\,,
306: \label{eqn:sqrtn}
307: \ee
308: where $\alpha$ is some coefficient of order unity ($\alpha=1/\sqrt{2}$ for a
309: Gaussian PSF).
310:
311: %More realistically, the PSF has spatial variation.
312: More realistically, the PSF does depend on the field position of stars.
313: In this case, we
314: are using the PSF parametric model as a means of interpolating between
315: the stellar positions. If the parameters are not too numerous, and
316: cause readily distinguished PSF patterns on the focal plane, then we
317: expect equation\,\ref{eqn:sqrtn} to continue to hold. Our simulation will show
318: that this is indeed the case for the SNAP design, and we will aim to
319: estimate the coefficient $\alpha$.
320:
321: \cite{PaulinHenriksson} instead consider the PSF to be locally
322: constant, and ask how large a region will contain enough stars to
323: adequately constrain this locally-constant PSF. They then consider
324: this region size to be smallest on which WL observations can be
325: successful. In reality both the time-varying PSF contamination and
326: the WL signal will have non-trivial angular power spectra and we have
327: to compare
328: the bandpowers of each in setting our specifications. \cite{Stabenau07}
329: investigate how PSF time variation will translate into multipole
330: patterns for a SNAP-like sky-scan strategy. In this paper we will
331: simply calculate the RMS residual PSF errors, and note that they have
332: characteristic angular scales similar to the telescope field of view.
333:
334: \section{Modeling the PSF}
335: \label{sec:PSF}
336:
337: \subsection{Optical Aberrations and Diffraction}
338:
339: We adopt standard scalar diffraction theory to evaluate the optical
340: contribution to the PSF. The wavefront on the focal plane $\{x, y\}$
341: generated by a point source is,
342: \be
343: U(x,y) = C \int \int d\xi d\eta P(\xi,\eta)
344: e^{ik \cdot OPD(\vec{\xi} , \vec{\theta})}
345: e^{-ik(\theta_x \xi + \theta_y \eta)}
346: e^{ik(x \xi + y \eta)/f} \,.
347: \label{eqn:waveFront}
348: \ee
349: Here $\vec{\xi}$ is the coordinate on the entrance pupil with components $\xi$
350: and $\eta$, $C$ is an uninteresting constant, $P(\xi,\eta)$ is the entrance
351: pupil function, $k = 2\pi/\lambda$ where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of
352: the band-limited optical light used to form the image, and $f$ is the
353: effective focal length of the telescope optics.
354: $OPD(\vec{\xi} ; \vec{\theta})$ is the optical path difference caused by the
355: lens/mirrors system
356: which we expand using Zernike polynomials \citep{Noll76} as basis.
357: The second exponential describes the phase differences
358: caused by the off-axis incident light ray in the direction $\vec{\theta}$ and
359: the third exponential is the phase differences caused by the
360: different distance light has to travel beyond the lens/mirrors and reach
361: the focal plane. The optical point spread function is
362: \be
363: PSF(\vec{x}) = \left | U(x,y) \right |^2 \,.
364: \ee
365:
366: Figure\,\ref{fig:pupil} shows the pupil function of SNAP telescope.
367: \begin{figure}[ht]
368: \begin{center}
369: \includegraphics[width=3.6in]{f1.eps}
370: \end{center}
371: \caption {Pupil function of SNAP telescope. The outer radius is 1 meter
372: and the inner radius is 0.35 meter. The width of the three
373: secondary mirror supporting struts is 4\,cm.
374: }
375: \label{fig:pupil}
376: \end{figure}
377:
378: \subsection{Optical Path Difference (OPD)}
379:
380: The OPD map of the perfectly aligned telescope and the derivatives
381: with respect to misalignment parameters are calculated using ray
382: tracing through the telescope's optical system. The OPD is projected
383: onto a Zernike basis, with results shown in Table\,\ref{tab:Jacobian}.
384: \be
385: OPD(\vec{\xi},\vec{\theta}) = \sum_{n=1} \left [ C_{n}(\vec{\theta})
386: + \sum_m D_m C^\prime_{mn}(\vec{\theta}) \right ] Z_n(\vec{\xi}) \,,
387: \label{eqn:opd}
388: \ee
389: where $Z_n$ is the $n^{th}$ Zernike polynomial, $D_m$ is the
390: the $m^{th}$
391: misalignment parameter, $C_{n}(\vec{\theta})$ is the OPD's
392: Zernike coefficients for pristine telescope and $C^\prime_{mn}(\vec{\theta})$ is
393: the Zernike coefficients of ${{\partial OPD} \over {\partial D_m}}$.
394:
395: In the SNAP telescope design \citep{Lampton02,Sholl04}, the secondary mirror
396: position is expected to be the only optical dimension to vary significantly
397: with time due to thermal drift. The secondary mirror has 5 degrees of freedom
398: (DOF) which include shifts $D_x$ and $D_y$ in transverse directions, the
399: defocus $D_z$, plus tilts around the $x$ axis ($T_x$) and $y$ axis ($T_y$).
400:
401: In practice we find that $C^\prime_{mn}(\vec{\theta})$ is a very weak
402: function of field for these parameters, and hence for the current
403: simulation we take $C^\prime_{mn}$ to be constants. The pristine-telescope
404: Zernike coefficients $C_{n}(\vec{\theta})$ retain field dependence, but the
405: axisymmetry of telescope design reduces the freedom to the radial direction.
406:
407: \begin{table}[ht]
408: \caption{Zernike coefficients of the OPD in nm for a perfectly aligned
409: telescope with field location 10.4\,mrad off axis $C_{n}$, and the derivatives
410: $C^\prime_{mn}$ (see equation\,\ref{eqn:opd}).}
411: \centering
412: \begin{tabular*} {0.99\textwidth} [] {@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c c c c c c c c c}
413: \tableline\tableline
414: Zernike & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 \\
415: \tableline
416: $C_{n}$ & 7.75 & 0.00 & 10.87 & 0.00 & 8.43 & 0.00 & -4.45 & 0.00 & 9.15 & -0.88 \\
417: \tableline
418: %Mirror Partial derivative with respect to:
419: $D_x$ ($\mu {\rm m}$) & -2.54 & 0.00 & 0.14 & 0.00 & 0.18 & 0.00 & 1.86 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
420: $D_y$ ($\mu {\rm m}$) & 0.00 & -2.55 & 0.00 & -0.18 & 0.00 & 1.86 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
421: $D_z$ ($\mu {\rm m}$) & -0.08 & 0.00 & -23.68 & 0.00 & 0.01 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.24 \\
422: $T_x$ ($\mu {\rm rad}$) & 0.00 & 1.27 & 0.00 & 0.63 & 0.00 & -0.93 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 \\
423: $T_y$ ($\mu {\rm rad}$) & -1.27 & 0.00 & -0.48 & 0.00 & 0.64 & 0.00 & 0.93 & 0.00& 0.00& 0.00 \\
424: \tableline
425: \end{tabular*}
426:
427: %\tablenotetext{a}{Zernike coefficients for pristine telescope with field
428: % location of 10.4\,mrad off axis.}
429: %\tablenotetext{b}{$1\,\mu {\rm rad} \approx 0.2\,{\rm arcsec}$ }
430: %\tablecomments{OPD is in nm.}
431: \label{tab:Jacobian}
432: \end{table}
433:
434: \subsection{Charge Diffusion}
435: The optical PSF must be convolved with the charge-diffusion pattern of the
436: CCD detector.
437: Charge diffusion is modeled as a Gaussian with fixed charge
438: diffusion length $\sigma_d=4\,\mu {\rm m}$. If the charge-diffusion
439: length were free to vary, it would be degenerate with an isotropic
440: telescope jitter (see below).
441: The PSF after charge
442: diffusion is
443: \be
444: PSF(x,y) = \int dx' dy' PSF_0(x',y') {1 \over {\sqrt{2 \pi} \sigma_d}}
445: {\rm exp} \left \{-{{(x-x')^2 + (y-y')^2} \over {2 \sigma_d^2}} \right \} \,,
446: \ee
447: where $PSF_0$ is the optical PSF. We execute the convolution with Fast Fourier
448: Transforms (FFTs).
449:
450: \subsection{Jitter}
451:
452: Guiding errors and mirror vibrations, also known as jitter, alter the effective
453: PSF of a finite-length exposure. Each exposure hence has a unique
454: PSF map, even if the optics are otherwise stable. If the observatory is free
455: to rotate on all three axes, as for a space-borne observatory or
456: an alt-az terrestrial telescope, then the effect of jitter varies across the
457: field of view, and is not a simple convolution of the image with a fixed
458: kernel. Stellar images in the exposure can
459: be used to infer the full field dependence of the jitter on the PSF.
460: We demonstrate here that as few as two stars are sufficient to fully reconstruct
461: the jittered PSFs, as long as the jitter amplitude is much less than the width
462: of the PSF.
463:
464: \subsubsection{Effect of Jitter on the PSF}
465: Assume that the modulation transfer function (MTF, the Fourier transform
466: of the PSF) at ${\bf x} = (x, y)$ from the optic axis is known to
467: be $T_0 ({\bf k})$ in the absence of telescope jitter. If the
468: jitter has displaced the stellar image by some amount ${\bf \Delta x} =
469: (\Delta x, \Delta y)$---which varies in time---then the transfer function
470: becomes
471: \be
472: T({\bf k},t) = T_0({\bf k}) e^{-i {\bf k} \cdot {\bf \Delta x}(t)} \,.
473: \ee
474:
475: The PSF for stellar images in the integrated exposure is the time-averaged
476: value
477: \be
478: T({\bf k}) = {1 \over P} \int_0^P dt T({\bf k},t) = T_0({\bf k})
479: \left < e^{-i{\bf k} \cdot {\bf \Delta x}(t)} \right > \,.
480: \ee
481:
482: If ${\bf k} \cdot {\bf \Delta x} \ll 1$,
483: then the exponential can be approximated by a Taylor expansion:
484: \be
485: T({\bf k}) = T_0({\bf k}) \left [ 1 -
486: i{\bf k} \cdot \left < {\bf \Delta x}(t) \right >
487: - {\bf k}^T \left < {\bf \Delta x \Delta x}^T \right > {\bf k}/2 \right ] \,.
488: \ee
489:
490: The effect of the jitter on the PSF is then fully described by the mean
491: displacement $\left < {\bf \Delta x} \right >$ and by the covariance
492: matrix ${\bf C}_{\Delta x} = \left < {\bf \Delta x \Delta x}^T \right >$.
493: Further detail of the jitter history is irrelevant. The linear term is
494: simply a displacement of the entire PSF, and the quadratic term describes
495: a convolution of the jitter-free PSF with a very narrow jitter kernel.
496: With a telescope of diameter $D$, focal length $f$, and wavelength $\lambda$,
497: % diffraction will force
498: physical optics forces MTF=0 for
499: $k < 2D/ (\lambda f)$. Therefore the Taylor expansion is valid if
500: \be
501: {{2D \Delta x} \over {\lambda f}} \ll 1 \,,
502: \label{eqn:TaylorCond}
503: \ee
504: in other words the jitter must be much less than the size of the Airy
505: disk.
506:
507: \subsubsection{Field Dependence of the Jitter MTF}
508:
509: If the observatory axis is displaced by angles
510: $ \bft = (\theta_x , \theta_y , \theta_z ) $,
511: {\it{i.e.}} pitch, yaw, and roll, then
512: the displacement of the image of star $i$ at $(x_i, y_i)$ is
513: \be
514: \Delta x_i = f \theta_x - y_i \theta_z
515: \ee
516: \be
517: \Delta y_i = f \theta_y + x_i \theta_z \,.
518: \ee
519:
520: If the roll is non-zero, then the image displacement is field-dependent.
521: Now considering the observatory misalignment (jitter) to be a function of
522: time,
523: \be
524: \left < \Delta x_i \Delta x_i \right > = f^2 \left < \theta_x \theta_x \right >
525: - 2 f y_i \left < \theta_x \theta_z \right >
526: + y_i^2 \left < \theta_z \theta_z \right >
527: \label{eqn:Cxx}
528: \ee
529: \be
530: \left < \Delta x_i \Delta y_i \right > = f^2 \left < \theta_x \theta_y \right >
531: + f x_i \left < \theta_x \theta_z \right >
532: - f y_i \left < \theta_y \theta_z \right >
533: - x_i y_i \left < \theta_z \theta_z \right >
534: \label{eqn:Cxy}
535: \ee
536: \be
537: \left < \Delta y_i \Delta y_i \right > = f^2 \left < \theta_y \theta_y \right >
538: + 2 f x_i \left < \theta_y \theta_z \right >
539: + x_i^2 \left < \theta_z \theta_z \right >
540: \label{eqn:Cyy}
541: \ee
542:
543: In the small-jitter limit, therefore, we find that the effect of the jitter
544: on the PSF at every point in the field of view is fully described by the six
545: independent elements of the jitter covariance matrix
546: ${\bf C}_{\theta} = \left < \bft {\bft}^T \right >$.
547: We can write
548: \be
549: T ({\bf k}, {\bf x}) = T_0({\bf k}, {\bf x}) \left [ 1 -
550: {\bf k} \cdot {\bf C}_{\Delta x}({\bf C}_{\theta},{\bf x})
551: \cdot {\bf k} / 2 \right ] \,.
552: \ee
553:
554: In practice, therefore, if we have an exposure for which the
555: jitter-free PSF pattern is well determined, then we can completely determine
556: the jittered PSF anywhere in the focal plane by knowing
557: the elements of ${\bf C}_{\theta}$. The jitter covariance matrix could be
558: determined from perfect knowledge of the PSF of any two stars in the
559: exposure. If there are a larger number of stars in the exposure,
560: then the six jitter covariances are highly over determined, hence they are
561: easily derived for every exposure, even if there are other degrees of freedom
562: in $T_0$ which must be determined from these stars.
563:
564: If the jitter amplitude is not small, then there can be a much larger
565: number of moments of the jitter history that are important, and a finite
566: number of stellar images may not in general recover full knowledge of the
567: effect of jitter on the PSF over the field. We will defer
568: consideration of this limit for another paper.
569:
570:
571:
572: \section{Simulation Procedure}
573: \label{sec:procedure}
574:
575: The simulation process is to: assume fiducial PSF parameters
576: (misalignment and/or jitter); create simulated stellar images across
577: the instrumented field of view; measure moments of these images; fit
578: the PSF model to these moments; and finally, evaluate the quality of the fit.
579:
580: \subsection{Fiducial Model}
581: We analyze a fiducial case in which the secondary mirror is translated
582: 1 $\mu$m and rotated 1 $\mu$rad from its correct position. This would
583: be considered a very large error for the optomechanical system. We
584: have verified that the choice of fiducial model does not influence the
585: RMS residuals to the fit.
586:
587: When analyzing jitter, we assume an RMS motion of 36~mas in pitch and
588: yaw with 700~mas RMS in roll (as expected from SNAP telescope design).
589: The RMS cross-correlation between axes is taken to be small by comparison.
590: Again, these do not strongly affect the results.
591:
592: \subsection{Simulated Stars}
593: We use the star counts from the COSMOS HST survey as representative of
594: high galactic latitude fields.
595: The star counts in the COSMOS field \citep{Robin06} are
596: well fit by (see Figure\,\ref{fig:starDist})
597: \be
598: {dn^\star \over dm} = 18.5 \times 10^{0.089m} \,{\rm deg^{-2} mag^{-1}} \,,
599: \label{eqn:RobinStarDist}
600: \ee
601: where $m$ is stellar magnitude in the F814W band.
602: \begin{figure}[ht]
603: \centerline{ \psfig{file=f2.eps, width=3.6in} }
604: \caption {COSMOS survey star magnitude distribution \citep{Robin06}.
605: }
606: \label{fig:starDist}
607: \end{figure}
608:
609: If the star is too bright, it would saturate the SNAP CCDs. We
610: hence conservatively assume that only stars with $19<m<23$ will be
611: used for morphometry. The bright limit
612: roughly corresponds to 50,000 photons for a 300 second exposure.
613: The faint limit corresponds to $\approx 1200$ photons per star, which
614: is comparable to the sky background in the exposure. Fainter stars
615: will contribute little to the PSF knowledge.
616:
617: The instrumented SNAP focal plane area is $\approx 0.7 \,{\rm deg^2}$.
618: This places approximately 2100 measurable stars on the focal plane, with
619: a total photon count of $N_\gamma\approx 2.3\times10^7$
620: per 300 sec exposure. This suggests that an ideal morphometry
621: process would yield $e^{\rm RMS}$, $\sqrt{2} \sigma^{\rm RMS}_\star\sim
622: 2\times10^{-4}$, well below the required weak lensing specification as
623: discussed in \S\,\ref{sec:intro}.
624:
625: We generate a sample of 2100 stars with random positions across the
626: focal plane. The magnitude of the stars is randomly generated according to
627: the magnitude distribution of equation\,\ref{eqn:RobinStarDist}.
628: The PSF, including optical distortions and charge diffusion is computed,
629: and is used to determine the mean number of photons detected in the CCD
630: pixels. The number of detected photons per pixel is drawn from a Poisson
631: distribution, and the quantum efficiency and gain of the SNAP pixels are
632: used to compute pixel values. Random dark noise of 5 photo-electrons
633: (as expected in the SNAP CCDs) is added to each pixel. The PSF moments
634: defined in equations\,\ref{eqn:m0}-\ref{eqn:pxy} and equation\,\ref{eqn:es}
635: are then computed from the pixel values.
636:
637: \subsection{Fitting Process}
638: For each available star in an exposure, we calculate the second and
639: third moments of a PSF image to which shot noise, sky noise, and read
640: noise have been added. With the resulting
641: PSF moments as data, we search for the best fit misalignment parameters
642: by minimizing $\chi^2$
643: \begin{equation}
644: \chi^2 = \sum_{i=1}^{N_\star} \sum_{jmom=1}^{Nmom}
645: {{(M_i^{jmom} - \hat{M}_i^{jmom})^2} \over {\sigma_{moment}^2}}\,,
646: \end{equation}
647: where $N_\star$ is the total number of stars, $Nmom$ is the number of
648: independent PSF moments per star ($Nmom = 3$ if only 2nd moments are used),
649: $M$ is star moment (with noise), $\hat{M}$ is star moment calculated from
650: the model
651: (no noise), and $\sigma_{moment}$ is the rms of star moments. In general,
652: $\sigma_{moment}$ depends on star magnitude, filter band and the position
653: of the star on the focal plane. We assume a fixed filter band and
654: neglect the ($<10\%$) dependence on position. We produce a lookup
655: table of
656: $\sigma_{moment}$ vs source magnitude by Monte Carlo methods before
657: doing the fit.
658:
659: The PSF moments depend nonlinearly on misalignment parameters. As an
660: example, Figure\,\ref{fig:testDer} shows the dependence of $P_{xx}$ on the
661: defocus parameter $D_z$.
662: The model-fitting procedure is hence nonlinear, so slower than a
663: linear $\chi^2$ fit.
664:
665: \begin{figure}[ht]
666: \centerline{ \psfig{file=f3.eps, width=3.6in} }
667: \caption { Dependence of PSF moment $P_{xx}$ on $z$-misalignment (in meters).
668: The star is located on the diagonal (i.e. $x=y$). }
669: \label{fig:testDer}
670: \end{figure}
671:
672:
673: \section{Results}
674: \label{sec:result}
675:
676: In this section, we show results of simulating and fitting for secondary
677: mirror misalignment only, and simulating and fitting with the jitter parameters
678: jointly.
679: We also show that the inclusion of third moments of the PSFs improves the fit.
680:
681: \subsection{Fit for Secondary Misalignments Only}
682:
683: \subsubsection{Using Second Moments of PSFs}
684:
685: We first simulate a single exposure of SNAP, using only the PSF second
686: moments to constrain the secondary-mirror misalignment.
687: The fiducial misalignment parameters, their fitted values,
688: and the $1-\sigma$ uncertainties are listed in
689: Table\,\ref{tab:fit}. $D_z$ is precise
690: to $<10$~nm which is well below the achievable
691: mechanical stability. Hence the morphometric information can greatly
692: improve knowledge of defocus.
693: The other parameters are as much as 20 times less precise: accuracies of
694: $\approx0.2\,\mu$m in $D_x$ and $D_y$ seem quite disappointing, for
695: example.
696:
697: \begin{table}[ht]
698: \centering
699: \caption{Misalignment fitting results}
700: \begin{tabular*} {0.99\textwidth} [] {@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c c c c}
701: \hline\hline
702: misalignment & fiducial value & fitted value \tablenotemark{a} & $1-\sigma$ error \tablenotemark{b} &
703: fit incl. 3rd moments \tablenotemark{c} & $1-\sigma$ error \tablenotemark{d} \\
704: \hline
705: $D_x$ ($\mu {\rm m}$) & 1 & 0.8542 & 0.1839 & 1.0052 & 0.1494 \\
706: $D_y$ ($\mu {\rm m}$) &-1 & -1.3869 & 0.2020 &-1.0719 & 0.1602 \\
707: $D_z$ ($\mu {\rm m}$) & 1 & 0.9870 & 0.0086 & 1.0005 & 0.0083 \\
708: $T_x$ ($\mu {\rm rad}$) & 1 & 0.4500 & 0.3280 & 0.8104 & 0.3125 \\
709: $T_y$ ($\mu {\rm rad}$) & 1 & 1.2370 & 0.3063 & 0.8549 & 0.2937 \\
710: \hline
711: \end{tabular*}
712:
713: \tablenotetext{a}{Fit using second moments of the PSFs.}
714: \tablenotetext{b}{1-$\sigma$ error of the fit using second moments of the
715: PSFs.}
716: \tablenotetext{c}{Fit using both second and third moments of the PSFs.}
717: \tablenotetext{d}{1-$\sigma$ error of the fit using both second and third
718: moments of the PSFs.}
719: %\tablecomments{single band 885 nm.}
720:
721: \label{tab:fit}
722: \end{table}
723:
724: To better understand this wide range of precisions, we examine the
725: eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the parameter covariance matrix,
726: shown in Table\,\ref{tab:eigen}. The best-constrained eigenvector is along
727: the $D_z$ direction, {\it i.e.} defocus. Two eigenvectors are
728: $\approx 80$ times more poorly constrained, but this
729: is not hard to understand. If the secondary mirror were spherical with
730: radius $R$, it
731: would have only three degrees of freedom, as misalignments with
732: $D_x=-RT_y$ and $D_y=-RT_x$ leave the sphere invariant.
733: A non-spherical secondary mirror breaks these degeneracies and
734: results in finite (but poor) constraints on these eigenvectors.
735:
736:
737: \begin{table}[ht]
738: \caption{Eigen values and eigen vectors of the misalignment covariance matrix}
739: \centering
740: \begin{tabular*} {0.99\textwidth} [] {@{\extracolsep{\fill}} c c c c c c}
741: \hline\hline
742: & eigen 1 & eigen 2 & eigen 3 & eigen 4 & eigen 5 \\
743: \hline
744: $D_x$ ($\mu {\rm m}$) &
745: 0.0661 & 0.4852 & 0.7423 & 0.4573 & 0.0037 \\
746: $D_y$ ($\mu {\rm m}$) &
747: -0.5022 & 0.0535 & 0.4597 & -0.7304 & -0.0107 \\
748: $D_z$ ($\mu {\rm m}$) &
749: 0.0033 & 0.0189 & -0.0058 & -0.0191 & 0.9996 \\
750: $T_x$ ($\mu {\rm rad}$) &
751: -0.8502 & 0.1516 & -0.2812 & 0.4185 & 0.0063 \\
752: $T_y$ ($\mu {\rm rad}$) &
753: -0.1438 & -0.8593 & 0.3981 & 0.2862 & 0.0245 \\
754: \hline
755: eigen values ($\lambda_i \times 10^{6}$) &
756: 0.3781 & 0.3479 & 0.0797 & 0.0758 & 0.0052 \\
757: \hline
758: Residual ($\times 10^{6}$) \tablenotemark{a} &
759: 0.6180 & -0.3789 & -0.0370 & 0.0538 & -0.0071 \\
760: \hline
761: \end{tabular*}
762:
763: \tablenotetext{a}{Projection of the vector that points from the fiducial
764: parameters to the fitted parameters onto the eigen vectors.}
765:
766: \label{tab:eigen}
767: \end{table}
768:
769: The ``Residual'' row in the table gives the projection of the
770: fitting error onto the eigenvectors. It shows that the fitted
771: parameters deviate from
772: the fiducial mostly in the directions that have weak constraints. All the
773: deviations are at or below $1.6\,\sigma$ level which is a sign that the fitter
774: is working properly.
775:
776: The quantity that matters to weak lensing is the precision of the PSF knowledge.
777: The apparent poor fit to some of the misalignments reflects the insensitivity
778: of the PSF moments to certain combinations. This insensitivity also
779: means, however, that poor knowledge of these eigenvectors has little
780: adverse effect on our PSF model.
781: We compare the {\it noiseless} PSF ellipticities and size generated
782: using the fitted
783: misalignment parameters with these generated using fiducial misalignment
784: parameters.
785: Figure\,\ref{fig:momDiff_2ndvs3rd} (left panel) shows the distributions of the
786: residual PSF moments for a realization of a single exposure. We see
787: that the PSF errors are well below the $10^{-3}$ target for all three
788: quantities. The spread in PSF errors reflects the variation across the
789: focal plane.
790:
791: \begin{figure}[ht]
792: \centerline{ \psfig{file=f4a.eps, width=3.2in}
793: \psfig{file=f4b.eps, width=3.2in}
794: }
795: \caption { Distributions of the residual PSF moments as defined in the text.
796: Left panel: the fit is done using 2nd moments of the PSFs.
797: Right panel: both 2nd and 3rd moments of the PSFs are used.}
798: \label{fig:momDiff_2ndvs3rd}
799: \end{figure}
800:
801:
802: \subsubsection{Including Higher Moments of PSFs}
803:
804: There is information in the higher moments of the PSF. This could
805: further constrain the telescope misalignments.
806: As shown in Table\,\ref{tab:fit}, the fitted misalignments are noticeably
807: closer to the true values and the error bars are reduced when the
808: observed PSF second {\em and} third moments are used in the
809: misalignment fit. Figure\,\ref{fig:momDiff_2ndvs3rd} shows the
810: reduction in PSF ellipticity and size residuals.
811: With the inclusion of third moments in the fit, the reduction of the
812: residual moments as shown in Figure\,\ref{fig:momDiff_2ndvs3rd} are much
813: more impressive than that of the one sigma errors shown in
814: Table\,\ref{tab:fit}. This is the manifestation that the contributions
815: to the one sigma errors are dominated by the two near degenerate eigens
816: which have little or no effect on the residual PSF moments.
817: In the following, we include third moments in the fit unless stated
818: otherwise.
819:
820:
821:
822: \subsection{Fitting Misalignment and Jitter Parameters Jointly}
823:
824: Table\,\ref{tab:fitAll} shows the results of fitting secondary misalignment
825: and jitter parameters jointly. Adding the 6 jitter degrees of freedom to
826: the model roughly doubles the uncertainties on the
827: %three well-constrained components
828: 5 misalignment degrees of freedom.
829: % (??? true???).
830: The parameter $D_z$ is still very precise (at $20\,{\rm nm}$ level).
831: The jitter parameters are determined without significant degeneracies
832: among each other nor with the misalignments; this is because these
833: parameters influence the PSF moments with rather distinct dependences
834: on field angle.
835: \begin{table}[ht]
836: \caption{Fitting for misalignment and jitter parameters}
837: \centering
838: \begin{tabular*} {0.99\textwidth} [] {@{\extracolsep{\fill}} l c c c}
839: \hline\hline
840: parameters & fit incl. 3rd moments & fiducial values & $1-\sigma$ error \\
841: \hline
842: $D_x$ ($\mu {\rm m}$) & 0.5367 & 1 & 0.3596 \\
843: $D_y$ ($\mu {\rm m}$) &-0.1932 &-1 & 0.3763 \\
844: $D_z$ ($\mu {\rm m}$) & 0.9725 & 1 & 0.0203 \\
845: $T_x$ ($\mu {\rm rad}$) & 2.6843 & 1 & 0.7503 \\
846: $T_y$ ($\mu {\rm rad}$) & 1.9457 & 1 & 0.7207 \\
847: $\left < \theta_x \theta_x \right >$ ($\mu {\rm rad}^2$)
848: & 0.0302 & 0.0300 & 0.0002 \\
849: $\left < \theta_x \theta_y \right >$ ($\mu {\rm rad}^2$)
850: & 0.0013 & 0.0010 & 0.0001 \\
851: $\left < \theta_x \theta_z \right >$ ($\mu {\rm rad}^2$)
852: & 0.0049 & 0.0010 & 0.0045 \\
853: $\left < \theta_y \theta_y \right >$ ($\mu {\rm rad}^2$)
854: & 0.0298 & 0.0300 & 0.0002 \\
855: $\left < \theta_y \theta_z \right >$ ($\mu {\rm rad}^2$)
856: & -0.0011 & 0.0010 & 0.0046 \\
857: $\left < \theta_z \theta_z \right >$ ($\mu {\rm rad}^2$)
858: & 19.5098 & 20.0000 & 0.9244 \\
859: \hline
860: \end{tabular*}
861: %\tablecomments{single band 885 nm; 2100 stars.}
862: \label{tab:fitAll}
863: \end{table}
864:
865: The residual PSF ellipticities and sizes for one realization of joint
866: misalignment/jitter fitting are shown in Figure\,\ref{fig:diffMom_all}.
867: \begin{figure}[ht]
868: \centerline{ \psfig{file=f5.eps, width=3.6in}
869: }
870: \caption { Distributions of the residual PSF moments
871: for fit including 5 secondary mirror misalignment and 6 jitter
872: parameters. Both 2nd and 3rd moments of the PSF are utilized. }
873: \label{fig:diffMom_all}
874: \end{figure}
875: As mentioned before, the spreads of the residual PSF $e_1, e_2$, and
876: $\sigma_\star$ distributions in this single realization are
877: due to field dependence. Different realizations of the data (star
878: locations and random noise change) produce different mean and spread of
879: the residual moments distribution.
880: Figure\,\ref{fig:RMS} left panel shows the distributions of $e^{\rm RMS}$
881: and $\sigma_\star^{\rm RMS}$ from 50 realizations.
882: We produce a single measure of the
883: efficacy of the morphometry procedure by averaging the RMS PSF
884: residuals over all focal-plane positions in many realizations, as per
885: equations\,\ref{eqn:e1RMS}-\ref{eqn:sigmaRMS}.
886: The mean values (in quadrature) of the distributions in
887: Figure\,\ref{fig:RMS} left panel
888: are exactly those. They are labeled by the arrows in the plot
889: and listed in Table\,\ref{tab:alpha} as well.
890: Calculated using equation\,\ref{eqn:sqrtn},
891: the $\alpha$ values are also tabulated in Table\,\ref{tab:alpha}.
892: Taking the average value, we find $\alpha \approx 1.8$. So we have
893: \be
894: e_1^{\rm RMS} \approx e_2^{\rm RMS} \approx \sqrt{2} \sigma_\star^{\rm RMS}
895: = 1.8 N_\gamma^{-1/2}\,.
896: \label{eqn:alpha}
897: \ee
898: %\begin{eqnarray}
899: %e_1^{\rm RMS} = e_2^{\rm RMS} & \approx & 3.0\times10^{-4} = 1.46 N_{\gamma}^{-1/2} \\
900: %\sigma_\star^{\rm RMS} & \approx & 1.8\times10^{-4} = 0.88 N_{\gamma}^{-1/2}.
901: %\end{eqnarray}
902: The ensemble
903: average residuals are consistent with zero, {\it i.e.} the PSF models
904: are unbiased, to the $2.5\times10^{-5}$ accuracy of our 50 realizations.
905:
906: \begin{figure}[ht]
907: \centerline{ \psfig{file=f6a.eps, width=3.2in}
908: \psfig{file=f6b.eps, width=3.2in}
909: }
910: \caption {Distributions of $e_1^{\rm RMS}$, $e_2^{\rm RMS}$, and
911: $\sigma_{\star}^{\rm RMS}$ from 50 realizations.
912: Left: 2100 stars are used for each realization.
913: Right: 100 stars are used for each realization.
914: The arrows point at the quadrature means of the distributions
915: which are listed in Table\,\ref{tab:alpha}.
916: Note that the horizontal scales are different in the
917: two panels.
918: }
919: \label{fig:RMS}
920: \end{figure}
921:
922: \begin{table}[ht]
923: \caption{Average $e^{\rm RMS}$ and $\sigma_{\star}^{\rm RMS}$ from 50
924: realizations and $\alpha$ values}
925: \centering
926: \begin{tabular*} {0.99\textwidth} [] {@{\extracolsep{\fill}} l|c c|c c}
927: \hline\hline
928: & 2100 stars per realization & $N_{\gamma} = 2.37 \times 10^7$ & 100 stars per realization & $N_{\gamma} = 1.29 \times 10^6$ \\
929: \hline
930: & average & $\alpha$ & average & $\alpha$ \\
931: \hline
932: $e_1^{\rm RMS}$ & $4.0 \times 10^{-4}$ & 1.95 & $1.8 \times 10^{-3}$ & 2.04 \\
933: $e_2^{\rm RMS}$ & $3.9 \times 10^{-4}$ & 1.90 & $1.7 \times 10^{-3}$ & 1.93 \\
934: $\sigma_{\star}^{\rm RMS}$ & $2.2 \times 10^{-4}$ & 1.52 & $1.0 \times 10^{-3}$ & 1.14 \\
935: \hline
936: \end{tabular*}
937: %\tablenotetext{I}{Defined and calculated using equation\,\ref{eqn:sqrtn}.}
938: %\tablecomments{2100 stars: $N_{\gamma} = 2.37 \times 10^7$
939: % $N_{\gamma}^{-1/2} = 2.05 \times 10^{-4}$;
940: % 100 stars: $N_{\gamma} = 1.29 \times 10^6$
941: % $N_{\gamma}^{-1/2} = 8.80 \times 10^{-4}$}
942: \label{tab:alpha}
943: \end{table}
944:
945: To test our hypothesis that the PSF errors will scale as $N_\gamma^{-1/2}$,
946: we repeat the simulation using 100 stars instead of the fiducial 2100
947: stars. The distributions of $e^{\rm RMS}$ and $\sigma_\star^{\rm RMS}$ are
948: shown in the right panel of Figure\,\ref{fig:RMS}.
949: %The mean and std of the distributions and $N_{\gamma}$ are listed in the plot.
950: Again, the quadrature means of these distributions are labeled by the
951: arrows in the plot and listed in Table\,\ref{tab:alpha}. We find $\alpha
952: \approx 1.7$. So the RMS residuals do indeed scale as expected.
953:
954: From Figure~\ref{fig:diffMom_all} it is clear that part of the
955: residual errors in the PSF ellipticities are from a shift in the mean
956: across the field of view, while the rest is from errors that vary
957: across the field of view. The two different types of PSF modeling
958: errors will propagate into different angular scales in the WL power
959: spectrum. For the SNAP simulation, we find that roughly half of the
960: $e$ modeling variance is in the mean across the field of view.
961:
962: Since essentially all the residual variance arises from shot noise in the
963: stars, it will be uncorrelated from exposure to exposure.
964:
965: \section{Conclusion and Discussion}
966: \label{sec:conclude}
967:
968: Our simulation of ``morphometry'' for the SNAP telescope demonstrates
969: that the $\approx2000$ well-measured stars in a typical exposure
970: contain sufficient information to reduce the errors in the modeled PSF
971: ellipticity and size to $4.0 \times10^{-4}$ and $2.2 \times10^{-4}$
972: respectively, giving significant margin to meet the $\approx10^{-3}$
973: level needed to reduce weak-lensing systematic errors below
974: statistical errors of future surveys.
975: For the SNAP telescope design and focal plane, we find
976: $e^{\rm RMS} \approx 1.8 / \sqrt{N_\gamma}$
977: and $\sigma_\star^{\rm RMS} \approx 1.1 / \sqrt{N_\gamma}$.
978:
979: PSF estimation error in morphometry will be only part of the
980: shape-measurement error budget, so this margin is important.
981: Other potential source of errors in PSF estimation include charge
982: transfer inefficiency (CTI), data compression artifacts, and chromatic
983: PSF dependence that causes galaxies' PSFs to differ from stellar PSFs.
984: Shape measurement errors can also arise in the deconvolution process
985: even if the PSF is known precisely \citep{STEP1, STEP2}.
986: To have a successful weak lensing
987: mission, the sum of these errors must meet the weak lensing requirement.
988:
989: We have also assumed that the only time-variable aspects of the PSF
990: are the secondary mirror alignment, and small pointing jitter. The
991: SNAP spacecraft is engineered to take advantage of the
992: extremely stable space environment so that these are the only relevant
993: degrees of freedom.
994: A ground based observatory would suffer in addition
995: the effects of wind, gravity loading, and seeing, which are
996: complicated to model, potentially involving a large number of
997: degrees of freedom. We have seen in the SNAP case that adding 6
998: jitter degrees of freedom to the PSF model makes the PSF model errors
999: twice as large as when we fit for only 5 misalignment parameters,
1000: so it seems likely that the PSF modeling performance will be degraded
1001: by larger number of parameters in the system.
1002:
1003: \acknowledgements {\it Acknowledgments}: We thank Michael Lampton,
1004: Alexie Leauthaud and Mike Jarvis for useful discussions. ZM and GB are
1005: supported by Department of Energy grant DOE-DE-FG02-95ER40893.
1006: GB acknowledges additional support from NASA grant BEFS 04-0014-0018
1007: and National Science Foundation grant AST 06-07667.
1008: AW is supported by the Department of Energy under grant DE-FG02-92-ER40701,
1009: and MS is supported by U.S. Department of Energy under contract
1010: No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
1011:
1012:
1013:
1014: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1015:
1016: \bibitem[Amara \& Refregier(2007)]{Amara07}
1017: Amara, A., \& Refregier, A., 2007, astro-ph/0710.5171
1018:
1019: \bibitem[Bartelmann \& Schneider(2001)]{Bartelmann99}
1020: Bartelmann, M., \& Schneider, P., 2001, Phys. Rept. 340, 291
1021: (astro-ph/9912508)
1022:
1023: \bibitem[Bernardeau(1998)]{Bernardeau98}
1024: Bernardeau, F., 1998, Astron. \& Astrophys. 338, 375-382
1025: (astro-ph/9712115)
1026:
1027: \bibitem[Bernstein(2008)]{Bernstein08}
1028: Bernstein, G., 2008, astro-ph/0808.3400
1029:
1030: \bibitem[Bridle \& King(2007)]{Bridle07}
1031: Bridle, S., \& King, L., 2007, New Journal of Physics, Vol. 9,
1032: Issue 12, 444 (astro-ph/0705.0166)
1033:
1034: \bibitem[Cimatti et al(2008)]{SPACE}
1035: Cimatti, A., Robberto, M., \& Baugh, C.M. et al, 2008,
1036: astro-ph/0804.4433
1037:
1038: \bibitem[Cooray \& Hu(2002)]{Cooray02}
1039: Cooray, A., \& Hu, W., 2002, ApJ 574, 19 (astro-ph/0202411)
1040:
1041: \bibitem[Dodelson et al(2006)]{Dodelson06}
1042: Dodelson, S., Shapiro, C., \& White, M., 2006, Phys. Rev.
1043: D73, 023009 (astro-ph/0508296)
1044:
1045: \bibitem[Hamana(2001)]{Hamana01}
1046: Hamana, T., 2001, MNRAS 326, 326 (astro-ph/0104244)
1047:
1048: \bibitem[Heymans \& Heavens(2003)]{Heymans03}
1049: Heymans, C., \& Heavens, A., et al, 2003, MNRAS
1050: 339, 711 (astro-ph/0208220)
1051:
1052: \bibitem[Heymans et al(2006)]{STEP1}
1053: Heymans, C., Waerbeke, L., \& Bacon, D. et al, 2006,
1054: MNRAS 368, 1323-1339 (astro-ph/0506112)
1055:
1056: \bibitem[Heymans et al(2006)]{Heymans06}
1057: Heymans, C., White, M., \& Heavens, A. et al, 2006, MNRAS
1058: 371, 750-760 (astro-ph/0604001)
1059:
1060: \bibitem[Hirata et al(2007)]{Hirata07}
1061: Hirata, C., Mandelbaum, R., \& Ishak M. et al, 2007,
1062: MNRAS 381, 1197-1218 (astro-ph/0701671)
1063:
1064: \bibitem[Hirata \& Seljak(2004)]{Hirata04}
1065: Hirata, C., \& Seljak, U., 2004, Phys. Rev. D70, 063526
1066: (astro-ph/0406275)
1067:
1068: \bibitem[Huterer \& Takada(2005)]{Huterer05}
1069: Huterer, D., \& Takada, M., 2005, Astropart. Phys. 23, 369-376
1070: (astro-ph/0412142)
1071:
1072: \bibitem[Huterer et al(2006)]{Huterer06}
1073: Huterer, D., Takada, M., Bernstein, G., \& Jain, B.,
1074: 2006, MNRAS 366, 101-114 (astro-ph/0506030)
1075:
1076: \bibitem[Jain et al(2006)]{Jain06}
1077: Jain, B., Jarvis, M., \& Bernstein, G., 2006, JCAP 0602, 001
1078: (astro-ph/0412234)
1079:
1080: \bibitem[Jarvis \& Jain(2004)]{Jarvis04}
1081: Jarvis, M., \& Jain, B., 2004, astro-ph/0412234
1082:
1083: \bibitem[Joachimi \& Schneider(2008)]{Joachimi08}
1084: Joachimi, B., \& Schneider, P., 2008, astro-ph/0804.2292
1085:
1086: \bibitem[Kaiser(1998)]{Kaiser98}
1087: Kaiser, N., 1998, ApJ, 498, 26 (astro-ph/9610120)
1088:
1089: \bibitem[King(2006)]{King05}
1090: King, L., 2005, astro-ph/0506441
1091:
1092: \bibitem[King \& Schneider(2002)]{King02}
1093: King, L., \& Schneider, P., 2002, Astron. Astrophys. 396, 411-418
1094: (astro-ph/0208256)
1095:
1096: \bibitem[King \& Schneider(2003)]{King03}
1097: King, L., \& Schneider, P., 2003, Astron. Astrophys. 398:23-30
1098: (astro-ph/0209474)
1099:
1100: \bibitem[Lampton(2002)]{Lampton02}
1101: Lampton, M., 2002, astro-ph/0209549
1102:
1103: \bibitem[Lee \& Pen(2008)]{Lee08}
1104: Lee, J., \& Pen, U., 2008, ApJ 681, 798-806 (astro-ph/0707.1690)
1105:
1106: \bibitem[Ma \& Bernstein(2008)]{MaBernstein08}
1107: Ma, Z., \& Bernstein, G., 2008, ApJ 682, 39-48
1108: (astro-ph/0712.1562)
1109:
1110: \bibitem[Ma et al(2006)]{Maetal06}
1111: Ma, Z., Hu, W., \& Huterer, D., 2006, ApJ 636, 21-29
1112: (astro-ph/0506614)
1113:
1114: %\bibitem[Ma(2006)]{Ma07}
1115: % Zhaoming Ma, 2007, ApJ 665, 887-898
1116: % (astro-ph/0610213)
1117: %
1118:
1119: \bibitem[Mandelbaum et al(2006)]{Mandelbaum06}
1120: Mandelbaum, R., Hirata, C., \& Ishak, M. et al, 2006,
1121: MNRAS 367, 611-626 (astro-ph/0509026)
1122:
1123: \bibitem[Massey et al(2007)]{STEP2}
1124: Massey, R., Heymans, C., \& Berge, J. et al, 2007,
1125: MNRAS 376, 13-38 (astro-ph/0608643)
1126:
1127: \bibitem[Noll(1976)]{Noll76}
1128: Noll, R. J., 1976, J. Opt. Soc. Am., Vol. 66, No. 3
1129:
1130: \bibitem[Paulin-Henriksson et al(2007)]{PaulinHenriksson}
1131: Paulin-Henriksson, S., Amara, A., \& Voigt, L. et al, 2007,
1132: astro-ph/0711.4886
1133:
1134: \bibitem[Robin et al(2006)]{Robin06}
1135: Robin, A. et al 2006, astro-ph/0612349
1136:
1137: \bibitem[Schneider et al(2002)]{Schneider02}
1138: Schneider, P., Waerbeke, L., \& Mellier, Y., 2002, A\&A 389, 729
1139: (astro-ph/0112441).
1140:
1141: \bibitem[Shapiro(2008)]{Shapiro08}
1142: Shapiro, C., 2008, PhD thesis, University of Chicago
1143:
1144: \bibitem[Shapiro \& Cooray(2006)]{Shapiro06}
1145: Shapiro, C., \& Cooray, A., 2006, JCAP 0603, 007
1146: (astro-ph/0601226)
1147:
1148: \bibitem[Stabenau et al(2007)]{Stabenau07}
1149: Stabenau, H. F., Jain, B., Bernstein, G., \& Lampton, M.,
1150: 2007, astro-ph/0710.3355
1151:
1152: \bibitem[Sholl et al(2004)]{Sholl04}
1153: Sholl, M., Lampton, M., \& Aldering, G. et al, 2004, Proc. SPIE v.5487 1473
1154:
1155: \bibitem[Sholl et al(2005)]{Sholl05}
1156: Sholl, M. et al, 2005, Proc. SPIE v.5899 27-38
1157:
1158: \bibitem[White(2005)]{White05}
1159: White, M., 2005, Astropart. Phys. 23, 349-354 (astro-ph/0502003)
1160:
1161: \bibitem[Wittman(2005)]{Wittman05}
1162: Wittman, D., 2005, ApJ 632, L5-L8 (astro-ph/0509003)
1163:
1164: \end{thebibliography}
1165:
1166: \end{document}
1167: