1: % mn2esample.tex
2: %
3: % v2.1 released 22nd May 2002 (G. Hutton)
4: %
5: % The mnsample.tex file has been amended to highlight
6: % the proper use of LaTeX2e code with the class file
7: % and using natbib cross-referencing. These changes
8: % do not reflect the original paper by A. V. Raveendran.
9: %
10: % Previous versions of this sample document were
11: % compatible with the LaTeX 2.09 style file mn.sty
12: % v1.2 released 5th September 1994 (M. Reed)
13: % v1.1 released 18th July 1994
14: % v1.0 released 28th January 1994
15:
16: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
17: \usepackage{amsmath}
18: \usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}
19:
20: % If your system does not have the AMS fonts version 2.0 installed, then
21: % remove the useAMS option.
22: %
23: % useAMS allows you to obtain upright Greek characters.
24: % e.g. \umu, \upi etc. See the section on "Upright Greek characters" in
25: % this guide for further information.
26: %
27: % If you are using AMS 2.0 fonts, bold math letters/symbols are available
28: % at a larger range of sizes for NFSS release 1 and 2 (using \boldmath or
29: % preferably \bmath).
30: %
31: % The usenatbib command allows the use of Patrick Daly's natbib.sty for
32: % cross-referencing.
33: %
34: % If you wish to typeset the paper in Times font (if you do not have the
35: % PostScript Type 1 Computer Modern fonts you will need to do this to get
36: % smoother fonts in a PDF file) then uncomment the next line
37: % \usepackage{Times}
38:
39: %%%%% AUTHORS - PLACE YOUR OWN MACROS HERE %%%%%
40: \newcommand{\ba}{\mbox{\boldmath{$\alpha$}}}
41: \newcommand{\bt}{\mbox{\boldmath{$\theta$}}}
42: \newcommand{\bb}{\mbox{\boldmath{$\beta$}}}
43: \newcommand{\f}{{\cal F}}
44: \newcommand{\g}{{\cal G}}
45: \newcommand{\bx}{{\mathbf x}}
46: \newcommand{\by}{{\mathbf y}}
47: \newcommand{\om}{\Omega_{\rm m}}
48:
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50:
51: \begin{document}
52:
53: \label{firstpage}
54: \title[An Aperture Mass Statistic for Flexion]{Detecting Mass Substructure in Galaxy Clusters: An Aperture Mass Statistic for Gravitational Flexion} \author[A. Leonard, L. J. King and S.M. Wilkins] {Adrienne
55: Leonard\thanks{Email: leonard@ast.cam.ac.uk}, Lindsay
56: J. King, and Stephen M. Wilkins\\Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB3 0HA}
57:
58: \date{}
59: \maketitle
60:
61: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2009}
62:
63: \begin{abstract} Gravitational flexion has been introduced as
64: a technique by which one can map out and study substructure in
65: clusters of galaxies. Previous analyses involving flexion have
66: measured the individual galaxy-galaxy flexion signal, or used either
67: parametric techniques or a KSB-type inversion to reconstruct the
68: mass distribution in Abell 1689. In this paper, we present an
69: aperture mass statistic for flexion, and apply it to the lensed
70: images of background galaxies obtained by ray-tracing simulations
71: through a simple analytic mass distribution and through a galaxy
72: cluster from the Millennium simulation. We show that this method is
73: effective at detecting and accurately tracing structure within
74: clusters of galaxies on sub-arcminute scales with high
75: signal-to-noise even using a moderate background source number
76: density and image resolution. In addition, the method provides much more
77: information about both the overall shape and the small-scale
78: structure of a cluster of galaxies than can be achieved through a weak lensing
79: mass reconstruction
80: using gravitational shear data. Lastly, we discuss how the
81: zero-points of the aperture mass might be used to infer the masses
82: of structures identified using this method.
83: \end{abstract}
84:
85: \begin{keywords}
86: {cosmology:observations - cosmology:dark matter - galaxies:clusters:general - gravitational lensing}
87: \end{keywords}
88:
89: \section{Introduction}
90: Galaxy clusters are the most massive bound structures in the universe,
91: some in excess of $10^{15}M_{\odot}$, with about 90\% of their mass in
92: the form of dark matter. The mass function of clusters provides a
93: sensitive test of our cosmological model (e.g. Bahcall \& Fan 1998;
94: Eke et al. 1998), and the mass function of substructure provides
95: important insight into galaxy formation in dense environments (e.g. De
96: Lucia et al. 2004; Taylor \& Babul 2005).
97:
98: In a universe dominated by Cold Dark Matter (CDM) such as our
99: concordance cosmology, $\Lambda$CDM, hierarchical structure formation
100: takes place with the growth of collapsed objects progressing via
101: merging of smaller objects. In non-hierarchical structure formation,
102: taking place in a universe dominated by Hot Dark Matter (HDM) for
103: example, the first haloes form via monolithic collapse. Recent N-body
104: simulations of halo formation in a HDM dominated universe by Wang \&
105: White (2008) show that it is the mass {\em substructure} content of
106: haloes - rather than most other halo properties such as shape or spin
107: parameter - that is markedly different from that seen in CDM.
108:
109: Gravitational lensing, being insensitive to whether matter is luminous
110: or dark and to its dynamical state, is an ideal probe of
111: substructure. Natarajan, De Lucia \& Springel (2007) have obtained
112: constraints on the substructure in five massive galaxy clusters using
113: weak and strong gravitational lensing observations, finding comparable
114: levels ($\sim 10-20\%$) to that seen in high-resolution simulated
115: clusters.
116:
117: In addition, Leonard et al. (2007) and Okura et al. (2008) have used
118: flexion measurements to detect substructure in Abell 1689. While the
119: Okura et al. reconstruction uses a nonparametric, KSB-type
120: (Kaiser, Squires \& Broadhurst, 1995) reconstruction technique, the
121: Leonard et al. reconstruction relies on a parametric modelling of
122: known cluster members. Each of these methods has its disadvantages; using the finite field inversion technique of Okura et al., it is difficult to accurately characterise the noise properties of the mass maps produced, and thus to assess the significance of the
123: detections, whilst the Leonard et al. reconstruction requires detailed knowledge of the locations of the structures responsible for the lensing. Since flexion studies in galaxy clusters are highly
124: sensitive to the substructure within the cluster, these studies cannot
125: be compared to weak or strong lensing reconstructions, or to mass
126: models of the cluster as a whole, to assess their performance.
127:
128: In this paper, we derive an aperture mass statistic for gravitational
129: flexion in direct analogy to that for gravitational shear (e.g. Schneider 1996;
130: Schneider et al. 1998), to enable us to use measurements of flexion to
131: determine the locations and statistical significance of mass peaks in
132: clusters of galaxies without the need for any parametric modelling or
133: comparison with complementary lensing studies. We begin with a review
134: of the flexion formalism, outline how flexion is measured and
135: techniques that have previously been used to map the mass distribution
136: in Abell 1689. In Section 3 the aperture statistic for flexion is
137: derived, and in Section 4 we describe the ray-tracing simulations that
138: have been carried out and how the aperture statistic is calculated
139: from the synthetic data. Section 5 presents results on the performance
140: of the statistic, and in Section 6 we discuss our findings and
141: conclude.
142:
143: Throughout this paper we use a matter density parameter $\Omega_{\rm
144: m}=0.27$, dark energy density parameter $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$
145: (with equation of state parameter $w=-1$) and Hubble parameter
146: $H_{0}=71$km$\,$s$^{-1}\,$Mpc$^{-1}$.
147: \section{Review of Flexion Formalism}
148:
149: In traditional weak lensing studies, the lens equation is approximated
150: as linear, and lensed images exhibit a purely elliptical distortion
151: aligned tangential to the lens. Linearisation of the lens equation
152: assumes that there is no variation of the lens field over the scale of
153: the lensed image. If this field is allowed to vary smoothly, the lens
154: equation becomes non-linear (see Goldberg \& Bacon 2005):
155: \begin{equation}
156: \beta_i \simeq A_{ij}\theta_j+\frac{1}{2}D_{ijk}\theta_j \theta_k,
157: \end{equation}
158: where $\beta$ is the coordinate in the source plane, $\theta$ is the
159: lensed coordinate, ${\bf A}$ is the magnification matrix
160: \begin{equation}
161: {\bf A}= \left(
162: \begin{array}{clrr}
163: 1-\kappa-\gamma_1 & -\gamma_2\\ -\gamma_2 & 1-\kappa+\gamma_1
164: \end{array}
165: \right)\,,
166: \end{equation}
167: $\kappa$ is the convergence, $\gamma_{1}, \gamma_{2}$ are the
168: components of the (complex) gravitational shear (a polar quantity),
169: and $D_{ijk}=\partial_kA_{ij}$. The ${\bf D}$ operators can be related
170: to two measurable quantities, first and second flexion, by
171: \begin{equation}
172: D_{ij1}=-\frac{1}{2}\left(
173: \begin{array}{clrr}
174: 3\f_1+\g_1 & \f_2+\g_2 \\
175: \f_2+\g_2 & \f_1-\g_1
176: \end{array}
177: \right),\nonumber
178: \end{equation}
179: \begin{equation}
180: D_{ij2}=-\frac{1}{2}\left(
181: \begin{array}{clrr}
182: \f_2+\g_2 & \f_1-\g_1 \\ \f_1-\g_1 & 3\f_2-\g_2
183: \end{array}
184: \right),
185: \end{equation}
186: where $\f=\f_1+i\f_2=\partial\kappa$, $\g=\g_1+i\g_2=\partial\gamma$,
187: and $\partial=\partial_1+i\partial_2$ is the differential operator
188: defined in Bacon et al. (2006).
189:
190: First flexion, $\f$, transforms as a vector, directly probing the
191: gradient of the convergence, and gives rise to a skewness in the light
192: distribution of the lensed image aligned radially with respect to the
193: lens. Second flexion, $\g$ has $m=3$ rotational symmetry and gives
194: rise to an arciness in the lensed image, aligned tangential to the
195: lens. Goldberg \& Leonard (2007) and Leonard et al. (2007) found that
196: second flexion is significantly more difficult to measure than first
197: flexion, thus for the
198: purposes of this paper, we will consider only first flexion.
199:
200: There are two distinct methods by which flexion can be measured. The
201: first, described in detail in Goldberg \& Bacon (2005), Bacon et
202: al. (2006) and Massey et al. (2007) involves the decomposition of
203: lensed images into an orthogonal basis set, shapelets (see
204: e.g. Bernstein \& Jarvis 2002, Refregier 2003, Refregier \& Bacon 2003, Massey \& Refregier
205: 2005), which are related to two-dimensional reduced Hermite or
206: Laguerre polynomials. One advantage of this method is that the various
207: lensing operators can be expressed rather simply in terms of the
208: quantum-mechanical raising and lowering operators, and produce rather
209: compact transfers of power between shapelet modes. Another advantage
210: is that an explicit deconvolution of the telescope point spread
211: function (PSF) can be carried out rather straightforwardly in this
212: method.
213:
214: An alternative technique has been formulated by Okura et al. (2007)
215: and subsequently refined and extended in Goldberg \& Leonard (2007)
216: and Okura et al. (2008). This technique involves measuring higher
217: order moments of the brightness distribution of the lensed image
218: (HOLICs), and using these moments to estimate the flexion. While less
219: compact on paper, the HOLICs method has the advantage that the
220: computational analysis time is dramatically shorter than that involved with
221: shapelets, particularly on large, well-resolved lensed
222: images. In addition, incorporating a weighting function in the
223: measurement of the HOLICs reduces the impact of noise in the image, as
224: well as light contamination from nearby sources, and the latest work
225: by Okura et al. (2008) describes a method whereby the effects of both
226: an isotropic and an anisotropic PSF can be corrected for.
227:
228: The shapelets technique has been used successfully to measure
229: galaxy-galaxy flexion in a sample of field galaxies in the Deep Lens
230: Survey (Goldberg and Bacon 2005), while two different implementations
231: of the HOLICs formalism have been used to measure flexion in images of
232: Abell 1689 (Leonard et al. 2007, Okura et al. 2008), where it has been
233: shown that flexion is particularly sensitive to substructure in
234: clusters of galaxies. While the Leonard et al. reconstruction includes
235: a description of the noise properties of their reconstructed
236: convergence map, the technique relies on accurate knowledge of the
237: locations of the cluster members responsible for the measured flexion
238: signal, and takes no account of the smooth component of the cluster
239: potential, nor does it account for the possible presence of dark
240: haloes within the cluster. The Okura et al. reconstruction has the
241: advantage of using a nonparametric technique, and thus not requiring
242: any a priori assumptions about the cluster. However, it is very
243: difficult with this technique to accurately describe the noise
244: properties of the convergence map generated.
245:
246: It is in this context that an aperture mass statistic, which includes
247: a straightforward description of the noise properties of the mass
248: peaks detected, is important.
249:
250:
251: \section{The Aperture Mass Statistic}
252:
253: To derive the aperture mass statistic for flexion, we closely follow
254: the work of Schneider (1996), in which the formalism for the
255: generalised aperture mass statistic for shear was first laid out. The
256: aperture mass is defined as:
257: \begin{equation}
258: \label{eq:apmass}
259: m(\bx_0)= \int d^2\bx\ \kappa(\bx+\bx_0)\ w(|\bx|).
260: \end{equation}
261: We aim to express this statistic in terms of some measurable quantity,
262: namely the measured flexion.
263:
264: The convergence is related to the first flexion by (see Appendix \ref{ap:kernels})
265: \begin{equation}
266: \label{eq:kfl}
267: \kappa(\bx)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\Re\left[\int d^2\bx^\prime\
268: E_\f^\ast(\bx-\bx^\prime)\f(\bx^\prime)\right]+\kappa_0,
269: \end{equation}
270: where
271: \begin{equation}
272: E_\f=\frac{1}{X^\ast},
273: \end{equation}
274: and $X=x_1+ix_2$. Thus, we can redefine the aperture mass as
275: \begin{eqnarray}
276: \lefteqn{m(\bx_0)=}\nonumber\\
277: & &\frac{1}{2\pi}\left(\Re \left[\int d^2\bx\ w(x)\int
278: d^2\bx^\prime\ E_\f^\ast
279: (\bx-\bx^\prime+\bx_0)\f(\bx^\prime)\right] \right.\nonumber\\
280: & & \left.+\int d^2\bx\ w(x)\kappa_0\right).
281: \end{eqnarray}
282: Schneider (1996) notes that the aperture mass can be made
283: independent of the constant quantity $\kappa_0$ if we require that the
284: mass filter function $w(x)$ is compensated, i.e.
285: \begin{equation}
286: \label{eq:comp}
287: \int_0^\infty x\ w(x) dx=0.
288: \end{equation}
289:
290: Under this condition, the aperture mass for flexion can be
291: redefined in terms of the ``E-mode'' (radially aligned) flexion as
292: follows (see Appendix \ref{ap:filt} for the complete derivation):
293: \begin{equation}
294: \label{eq:mflex}
295: m(\bx_0)=\int d^2\by\ \f_E(\by;\bx_0)\ Q_\f(y),
296: \end{equation}
297: where
298: \begin{equation}
299: \label{eq:qwflex}
300: Q_\f(y)=-\frac{1}{y}\int_0^y\ x\ w(x)\ dx.
301: \end{equation}
302:
303: In direct analogy with the shear aperture mass statistic, the expected
304: signal to noise ratio, ${\cal S}$, achievable for a given flexion filter
305: function can be calculated by taking an ensemble average over the probability distribution for the background galaxy positions, which gives
306: \begin{equation}
307: \label{eq:snflex} {\cal S}=\frac{2\sqrt{\pi
308: n}}{\sigma_\f}\frac{\int_0^R\ x\ Q_\f(x)\left\langle
309: \f_E\right\rangle(x)\ dx} {\sqrt{\int_0^R\
310: x\ Q^2_\f(x) dx}},
311: \end{equation}
312: where $n$ is the number density of background sources within the
313: aperture, and $\sigma_\f$ is the dispersion in flexion
314: measurements. Goldberg \& Leonard (2007) found $\sigma_{a|\f|}=0.03$, implying $\sigma_\f\sim 0.28/\arcsec$. We note that this is likely to be an overestimate of the true, unlensed dispersion in flexion values, however, as this estimate is based on the flexion measured in galaxies within a moderate lensing field.
315: \subsection{Choosing a Filter}
316: We consider two different families of filter functions for the flexion
317: aperture mass statistic. These filters are able to attain a very
318: similar peak signal-to-noise; however, the dependence of the signal to
319: noise ratio on various factors (such as the scale of the lens
320: substructures and the size of the aperture being used) differs
321: significantly between the two sets of filters, thus their respective domains of applicability differ.
322:
323: It is important to note that the signal to noise attainable for a given lens profile is maximised when the flexion filter function traces the expected flexion signal. Thus the optimal choice of filter function is strongly dependent on the flexion profiles of the structures being studied. The filter functions presented in this paper have not been chosen to be optimal for a given lens profile; rather they are designed to have rather broad applicability, thus allowing us to detect structures without requiring a priori knowledge of the profiles of these structures.
324: \subsubsection{Piecewise-continuous Filters}
325: \label{subsubsec:96}
326: Schneider (1996) describes a generalised piecewise-continuous,
327: compensated mass filter function, from which he derives a shear filter function:
328: \begin{equation}
329: w_\gamma(x)=
330: \begin{cases}
331: 1 & {\scriptstyle x<\nu_1R}\\ \\
332: \frac{1}{1-c}\left(\frac{\nu_1R}{\sqrt{(x-\nu_1R)^2+(\nu_1R)^2}}-c\right)
333: & {\scriptstyle \nu_1R<x<\nu_2R}\\ \\
334: \frac{b}{R^3}(R-x)^2(x-\alpha R) &
335: {\scriptstyle \nu_2R<x<R}
336: \end{cases},
337: \end{equation}
338: where $\nu_1 R$ is an inner radius, usually taken to be small compared to the size of the aperture, and $\nu_2 R$ is an outer radius, usually taken to be close to the aperture scale $R$. The constants $\alpha$, $b$ and $c$ are calculated using the
339: constraints that $w_\gamma(x)$ and $\partial w_\gamma(x)/\partial x$ must be continuous at
340: $x=\nu_1R$ and $x=\nu_2R$, and that $w_\gamma(x)$ must be compensated.
341:
342: Noting that the mass filter function for flexion is roughly proportional to the derivative of the mass filter function for shear, we choose
343: \begin{equation}
344: w_\f(x)=
345: \begin{cases} 1 & {\scriptstyle x<\nu_1R}\\ \\ \frac{1}{1-c}
346: \left(\frac{(\nu_1R)^3} {\left((x-\nu_1R)^2+(\nu_1R)^2\right)^{\frac{3}{2}}}-c
347: \right) & {\scriptstyle \nu_1R<x<\nu_2R} \\ \\
348: \frac{b}{R^3}(R-x)^2(x-\alpha R)
349: & \scriptstyle{\nu_2R<x<R}, \end{cases},
350: \end{equation}
351: where, again, the constants can be computed by requiring that $w(x)$
352: and $\partial w(x)/\partial x$ be continuous at $x=\nu_1R$ and
353: $x=\nu_2R$, and that $w(x)$ be compensated.
354: Applying equation \ref{eq:qwflex}, we find that
355: \begin{eqnarray}
356: Q_\f(x\le \nu_1R)=-\frac{x}{2},\nonumber
357: \end{eqnarray}
358: \begin{eqnarray}
359: \lefteqn{Q_\f(\nu_1R\le x\le\nu_2R)=}\nonumber\\
360: & &-\frac{(\nu_1R)^2\left(3+\frac{2(x-2\nu_1R)}{\sqrt{(x-\nu_1R)^2+
361: (\nu_1R)^2}}\right)-cx^2}{2(1-c)x},\nonumber
362: \end{eqnarray}
363: \begin{eqnarray}
364: \label{eq:q_96}
365: \lefteqn{Q_\f(x\ge\nu_2R)=
366: -\frac{R^2\left(\nu_1^2\left(3+\frac{2(\nu_2-2\nu_1)}
367: {\sqrt{(\nu_2-\nu_1)^2+\nu_1^2}}\right)-c\nu_2^2\right)}{2(1-c)x}}
368: \nonumber\\
369: \nonumber\\
370: &-\frac{b}{20R^3x}\left( 4(x^5-(\nu_2R)^5)
371: -5(2+\alpha)R(x^4-(\nu_2R)^4)\right)\nonumber\\ \nonumber\\
372: &-\frac{b}{6Rx}\left(2(1+2\alpha)(x^3-(\nu_2R)^3) -3\alpha
373: R(x^2-(\nu_2R)^2)\right).\nonumber\\
374: %\end{split}
375: \end{eqnarray}
376:
377: \begin{figure}
378: \includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{f1a.png}
379: \includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{f1b.png}
380: \caption{\textit{Left Panel:} The piecewise-continuous mass filter function
381: described in \S~\ref{subsubsec:96} plotted as a function of $x/R$,
382: where R is the aperture radius, for $\nu_2=0.95$. \textit{Right Panel:} The
383: corresponding flexion filter functions.\label{filters1996}}
384: \end{figure}
385:
386: Fig.~\ref{filters1996} shows the mass and flexion filter functions derived
387: above for various choices of $\nu_1$, taking $\nu_2=0.95$. The flexion filter drops of roughly as $x^{-1}$ for $\nu_1 R\le x\le \nu_2R$, thus is not optimised for either an isothermal profile or an NFW profile (and, in fact, would only be optimal for a profile with $\kappa(x) \propto \log(x)$). However, as it has a rather wide distribution, we expect to be able to detect structures with a broad range of profiles using this filter.
388:
389: \subsubsection{Polynomial Filters}
390: \label{subsubsec:98}
391:
392: A more compact family of (continuous) mass filter functions was described
393: by Schneider et al. (1998) as:
394: \begin{equation}
395: \label{eq:w_98}
396: w(x)=A\frac{(2+l)^2}{\pi}\left(1-\frac{x^2}{R^2}\right)^l\left(\frac{1}{2+l}-
397: \frac{x^2}{R^2}\right),
398: \end{equation}
399: where $A$ is a factor arising from the normalisation of the associated
400: flexion filter function. This family of functions drops off with order $l$ as
401: $x\rightarrow R$, and were designed to be applicable for cosmic shear studies. Thus, the filter functions are not optimised, but should be sensitive to a range of mass profiles.
402:
403: The associated flexion filter functions are given by
404: \begin{equation}
405: \label{eq:q_98}
406: Q_\f(x)=
407: -A\frac{2+l}{2\pi}x\left(1-\frac{x^2}{R^2}\right)^{1+l}.
408: \end{equation}
409: It is clear from dimensionality considerations that $Q_\f$ must
410: have dimensions of length, as the product $\f Q_\f$ must be
411: dimensionless and flexion itself carries dimensions of inverse
412: length. Thus, we choose the normalisation constant, $A$, such that
413: \begin{equation}
414: \label{eq:leonardnorm}
415: \frac{2\pi}{R^3}\int_0^R x\ Q_\f(x) dx = 1.
416: \end{equation}
417: Thus,
418: \begin{equation}
419: \label{eq:normconst}
420: A=\frac{4}{\sqrt{\pi}}\frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{7}{2}+l\right)}{\Gamma(3+l)}.
421: \end{equation}
422:
423: \begin{figure}
424: \includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{f2a.png}
425: \includegraphics[width=0.22\textwidth]{f2b.png}
426: \caption{\textit{Left Panel:} The polynomial mass filter function described
427: in \S~\ref{subsubsec:98} plotted as a function of $x/R$. \textit{Right Panel:} The corresponding flexion
428: filter functions.\label{filters1998}}
429: \end{figure}
430:
431: These mass and flexion filter functions are plotted in Fig.~\ref{filters1998} for various values of $l$.
432:
433: \subsection{Expected Signal to Noise}
434: \label{subsec:sn}
435:
436: The expected signal to noise achievable for a given filter function can be calculated according to equation \ref{eq:snflex}. This turns out to be quite a straightforward calculation using the polynomial flexion filter functions (equation \ref{eq:q_98}) and under the assumption of a singular isothermal sphere lens profile ($\f_E(x)=\theta_E/2x^2$), where we find the signal to noise to be given by:
437: \begin{equation}
438: \label{eq:snth}
439: {\cal S}=\frac{\theta_E}{R}\frac{\sqrt{n}}{\sigma_\f} \frac{\Gamma(2+l)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{5}{2}+l\right)}\sqrt{(2+l)(3+2l)} ,
440: \end{equation}
441: where $n$ is the background source density, $\sigma_\f$ is the intrinsic flexion dispersion, and $\theta_E$ is the Einstein radius of the lens, given by
442: \begin{equation}
443: \theta_E=4\pi\left(\frac{\sigma_v}{c}\right)^2\frac{D_{ls}}{D_s},
444: \end{equation}
445: where $D_s$ is the angular diameter distance to the source plane and $D_{ls}$ is the angular diameter distance
446: between the lens and source planes.
447:
448: Thus, we can see that the expected signal to noise for this set of
449: filters decreases with increasing aperture size. This would
450: seem to imply that, in order to optimise the signal to noise, the
451: apertures should be made as small as possible. However, decreasing the aperture size
452: decreases the number of sources within each aperture. In a noisy image
453: where the flexion is not measured perfectly, increasing the number of
454: sources within an aperture will increase the statistical significance
455: of the measurement. In other words, having a small number of (noisy) flexion measurements within an aperture will artificially increase the value of $\sigma_\f$ within that aperture, thus decreasing the signal to noise achievable within the aperture.
456:
457: In addition, a small aperture size will inevitably result in many apertures over the field having no sources in them, particularly when using data with a low background source count. This will result in a patchy measured aperture mass with discontinuities seen where there are apertures containing no sources. It is thus necessary to use larger apertures than the signal to noise calculation might imply are optimal.
458:
459: The above calculation also assumes that the flexion signal is measurable at $x=0$, and indeed more heavily weights the signal close to the centre of the aperture. Now, in practice, we will be unable to measure the flexion at very small distances from the centre of the lens because the lens itself will obscure any background objects directly behind it. In addition, the flexion profile described by equation \ref{eq:snth} becomes very large as $x\rightarrow 0$. A more reasonable model of the lens profile might be a softened isothermal sphere, in which the convergence is given by
460: \begin{equation}
461: \kappa(x)=\left(1+\frac{x^2}{2\theta_E^2}\right)\left(1+\frac{x^2}{\theta_E^2}\right)^{-\frac{3}{2}},
462: \label{eq:ssis}
463: \end{equation}
464: which gives rise to a flexion signal given by
465: \begin{equation}
466: \f_E(x)=-\frac{x}{\theta_E^2}\left(2+\frac{x^2}{2\theta_E^2}\right)\left(1+\frac{x^2}{\theta_E^2}\right)^{-\frac{5}{2}}.
467: \end{equation}
468:
469: \begin{figure}
470: \center
471: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f3a.png}
472: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f3b.png}
473: \caption{\textit{Top Panel:} The expected signal to noise for the
474: filter described in equation \ref{eq:q_96}, plotted as a function
475: of $\nu_1$ and $R$. \textit{Bottom Panel: }The expected
476: signal to noise for the family of filters described in equation
477: \ref{eq:q_98} as a function of $l$ and $R$.
478: \label{fg:sn}}
479: \end{figure}
480:
481: Figure \ref{fg:sn} shows the expected signal to noise for this softened isothermal profile
482: for the filter functions described by equations \ref{eq:q_96} and
483: \ref{eq:q_98}. For each, we assume a velocity dispersion of $\sigma_v=500$km s$^{-1}$, which gives rise to $\theta_E\simeq 5\arcsec.95$ assuming $D_{ls}/D_s=0.8$. We take $n=35$ arcmin$^{-2}$ and $\sigma_\f=0.1/\arcsec$. This is a low value compared to the dispersion in flexion measurements found by Goldberg and Bacon (2005) or Goldberg and Leonard (2007); however the simulated data with which we are concerned in this paper has a lower dispersion than that seen in real data, thus the value of $\sigma_\f$ taken here is representative of our data. In addition, the measured values found in Goldberg and Bacon (2005) and Goldberg and Leonard (2007) are likely to be overestimates of the ``true'' flexion dispersion, as these measurements were carried out in lens fields, thus we expect to see a flexion signal in these background galaxies. We find the peak attainable signal to noise for each filter to be $\sim18$, with a slightly higher peak signal to noise found using the piecewise-continuous flexion filter function.
484:
485: It is important to note that the expected signal to
486: noise ratio has been computed here under the assumption that there is
487: only one lens present in the regime being considered. However,
488: clusters of galaxies tend to be quite clumpy; thus we expect the
489: signal to noise achievable in clusters to be somewhat lower, though still appreciable.
490:
491: It is clear from the figure that the signal to noise properties of these two filter functions differ significantly. Thus comparisons between the aperture mass measured using different filters provides a robust method for checking the accuracy of these maps. It is clear that for most values of $\nu_1$, the piecewise-continuous function favours smaller apertures; that is, apertures more closely matched with the characteristic size of the lens. The polynomial filters, on the other hand, favour larger apertures as the polynomial order is increased, and indeed should provide robust detections for a broad range of aperture sizes for any given choice of polynomial order $l$, particularly if $l$ is large.
492:
493: In addition, for a given choice of aperture size, increasing $l$ should decrease the minimum scale on which structures are resolved, as increasing $l$ decreases the radius at which the filter function reaches its peak. Similarly, decreasing the value of $\nu_1$ for the piecewise-continuous filter should decrease the minimum scale on which structures can be resolved. Thus it is possible with both these filters to resolve structures on both large and small scales by appropriately tuning the filter. This is important in clusters of galaxies, where one is interested in both the large-scale structure of the cluster potential, but also the smaller-scale substructures within it.
494:
495: \section{Application to Simulations}
496: We test our method on two different simulated lens systems using a
497: ray-tracing simulation to artificially lens background test galaxies
498: through a given convergence field.
499:
500: \subsection{Ray-tracing Method}
501: \label{subsec:raytrace}
502: To carry out the ray-tracing, we first consider the mapping
503: between the source and lens planes. This is given by
504: $\bb=\bt-\ba(\bt)$, where $\bb$ are the coordinates in the source
505: plane, $\bt$ are the coordinates in the lens plane, and $\ba$ are the
506: deflection angles evaluated as a function of the lens plane
507: coordinates. In Fourier space, the convergence and the deflection
508: angle are related by
509: \begin{equation}
510: \label{eq:fft}
511: \tilde{\alpha_i}=-\frac{2ik_i}{k_1^2+k_2^2}\tilde{\kappa}.
512: \end{equation}
513:
514: Thus, in order to calculate the deflection angles arising due to a given lens convergence, one simply needs to Fourier transform the convergence field, apply equation \ref{eq:fft}, and then compute the inverse Fourier transform. In order to achieve sufficient numerical accuracy and avoid edge effects, zero-padding is applied surrounding the convergence field. For all the simulations described in this section, we use a padding on all four sides of the image that is 3.5$\times$ the size of the input image.
515:
516:
517: \subsection{Analytic Simulation}
518: \label{subsec:analytic}
519: As a first test of the aperture mass technique, a purely analytic lens convergence is generated by laying down a number of randomly
520: distributed, circular test ``galaxies" with a convergence defined by equation \ref{eq:ssis}, and with a pixel scale of $0\arcsec .5$ pix$^{-1}$. For these simulations, we take $D_{ls}/D_s=0.8$, thus for a source redshift of $z_s=1.0$, the lens will be at a redshift of $z_l\simeq 0.16$.
521:
522: We test our method on both a single lens galaxy and a group of galaxies. The velocity dispersion for the single lens case is taken to be $\sigma_v=500$km s$^{-1}$, while for the group simulation, the velocity dispersion of each lens galaxy is drawn randomly from a Gaussian
523: distribution with a mean of 220\,km\,s$^{-1}$ and a standard deviation of
524: 20\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The pixel locations of each test galaxy in the group are also
525: drawn from a Gaussian distribution centred on the centre of the image
526: grid, and with a standard deviation set to $N_{\rm pix}/10$, where $N_{\rm pix}$ is the width of the image in pixels.
527:
528: \subsection{N-body Simulation}
529: \label{subsec:nbody}
530: The advantage of using a purely analytic potential is that the method
531: can be tested and checked for accuracy at various stages of the analysis
532: pipeline, as the expected flexion and deflection angles can be calculated
533: analytically. However, this method does not generate a particularly
534: realistic model cluster of galaxies.
535:
536: For this purpose, we make use of
537: a cluster extracted from the Millennium simulation (Springel et al. 2005) at a redshift of $z_l=0.21$. The resolution of the cluster image used is 5$h^{-1}$ kpc/pixel ($2\arcsec .07$ pix$^{-1}$), corresponding to the gravitational softening of the simulation, and the projections are computed using a nearest grid point interpolation. The cluster has a characteristic radius $R_{200}=2.0\ h^{-1}$Mpc and a mass of $M_{200}=1.23\times 10^{15}\ h^{-1}M_\odot$. We extract the central 1.0$h^{-1}$Mpc of this cluster for use with our ray-tracing simulation.
538:
539: It is important to note that, when carrying out the ray-tracing using this cluster as our lens, we do not apply any smoothing or inter-pixel interpolation prior to computing the deflection angles across the lens plane grid. As the cluster data is quite noisy, and the pixel scale is significantly larger than that used for the simulated background galaxies, we expect this inter-pixel noise to result in noisier flexion data than that found when using a lens simulated as described in \S~\ref{subsec:analytic}.
540:
541: \subsection{Background Galaxy Population}
542: \label{subsec:bg}
543: For all the ray-tracing simulations, we use an image resolution of $0.1\arcsec $pix$^{-1}$, and a background number density of 35 sources/arcmin$^2$. This may seem to be a rather optimistic value compared to typical ground based observations, and indeed when compared to the analysis of Abell 1689 carried out by Okura et al. (2008) using Subaru data, in which they used 5 sources/arcmin$^2$. However, the Leonard et al. (2007) analysis used $75$/arcmin$^2$, which is rather high, but typical of space-based observations. Further, current and upcoming surveys and instruments will regularly be able to achieve a background source count of in excess of $35$/arcmin$^2$. Some examples are the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST\footnote{LSST Dark Energy Task Force Whitepaper: http://www.lsst.org/Science/docs/LSST\_DETF\_Whitepaper.pdf}), which should offer 50 sources/arcmin$^2$, the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) Legacy Survey, which obtains 35 sources/arcmin$^2$ (Gavazzi \& Soucail 2007), and Suprime Cam, for which conservative estimates quote 35/arcmin$^2$ and higher (van Waerbeke et al. 2006).
544:
545: The pixel locations
546: for each source are drawn from a uniform random distribution, while
547: each of the two components of the complex ellipticity, $\epsilon_i$, are
548: drawn from a random Gaussian distribution with a mean of zero and a
549: standard deviation of 0.2. The background sources are all placed at
550: the same redshift ($z_s=1.0$), and the brightness in the source plane generated according to
551: \begin{equation}
552: I(x,y)=\sum_i e^{-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{r_i(x,y)}{\sigma_i}\right)^{\frac{5}{2}}},
553: \end{equation}
554: where the sum is taken over all background galaxies,
555: \begin{eqnarray}
556: r_i&=&\frac{\sqrt{\left((1-\epsilon_{1})x^\prime-\epsilon_{2}y^\prime\right)^2+
557: \left(-\epsilon_{2}x^\prime+(1+\epsilon_1)y^\prime\right)^2}}
558: {1-|{\mathbf\epsilon}|^2},
559: \end{eqnarray}
560: and $x^\prime=x-x_i$. We take $r_{\rm gal}=6$kpc to be a characteristic scale for the galaxies, and define $\sigma=r_{\rm gal}/1.22d_{\rm gal}$, where $D_{s}$ is the angular diameter distance to the source plane.
561:
562: The background galaxies are lensed by computing the mapping from each pixel location in the lens plane to the source plane and using a cubic interpolation to determine the brightness distribution at that location.
563:
564: \subsection{Computing the Aperture Mass Statistic}
565: To compute the aperture mass over the field of view, we use a grid of $1000\times1000$ apertures of a fixed radius. The flexion is measured using the weighted HOLICs formalism laid out in Goldberg \& Leonard (2007). As in Leonard et al. (2007), we reject any flexion measurements for which $a|\f|>0.2$, where $a$ is the measured semi-major axis of the lensed galaxy. This is done to ensure that no strongly lensed objects are included, and to reduce contamination from bad measurements or blended sources.
566:
567: In order to compute the noise in the aperture mass measurement, the data are randomised by rotating each flexion vector by an angle drawn randomly from a uniform distribution in the range $0\le \theta \le 2\pi$ and computing the aperture mass on the randomised data. This procedure is carried out 5000 times, and the noise is given by the standard deviation of the aperture mass maps generated using randomised data.
568:
569: \section{Results}
570: \subsection{Single Lens Galaxy}
571: \label{subsec:simple}
572: As a first test of the aperture mass method, we consider here a single lens galaxy with a velocity dispersion of $500$km s$^{-1}$, corresponding to an Einstein radius of $\theta_E=5\arcsec .95$ assuming $D_{ls}/D_{s}=0.8$. In addition, we consider data in which the flexion is measured exactly; i.e. we randomly sample points on the lens plane grid at a rate of $35$ arcmin$^{-2}$, analytically compute the flexion at these points, and use these data to compute the aperture mass. Any data points that are found to lie within the Einstein radius of the lens are discarded prior to computing the aperture mass. 5000 randomisations of the data are carried out, the resulting dispersion giving a measurement of the noise associated with the aperture mass. We use the polynomial flexion filter function described in \S~\ref{subsubsec:98}, taking $l=3$ and $R=60\arcsec$.
573:
574: \begin{figure}
575: \center
576: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f4.png}
577: \caption{The flexion aperture mass signal to noise contours for a simple softened isothermal lens and randomly-sampled theoretical data overlaid on a density plot of the underlying convergence. The solid contours show positive signal to noise, while the dashed contours show regions of negative signal. The zero point contour is clearly labelled. \label{fg:simple}}
578: \end{figure}
579:
580:
581: Figure \ref{fg:simple} shows the signal to noise map for the aperture mass computed in this way. As expected from the calculation in \S~\ref{subsec:sn}, we find the peak signal to noise for this reconstruction to be ${\cal S}_{peak}=18.1$. A very noticeable feature of the aperture mass map generated in this way is that there is a clear radius at which the signal becomes negative. We expect the aperture mass to become negative at large radii as the mass filter function becomes negative, and the radius at which this occurs will be dependent on the mass profile of the lens, the strength of the lens, the shape of the filter function used, and the size of the aperture. This implies that if this zero contour can be resolved in real images, and a reasonable shape for the mass profile of the lens can be assumed, one might be able to infer the mass of the lens (or its Einstein radius) simply by measuring the radius of the aperture mass zero contour.
582:
583: \begin{figure}
584: \center
585: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f5.png}
586: \caption{The zero point radius $R_0$ as a function of $\theta_E/R$ for an aperture size of $R=120\arcsec$ and a polynomial order $l=5$. The discrete points represent the actual data, and the solid line shows the line of best fit for the data. The solid curves represent regions of positive signal, while the dashed curves show areas of negative signal. \label{fg:zero_pt}}
587: \end{figure}
588:
589: A detailed treatment of this idea is beyond the scope of this paper; however, as a test of this concept, we measured the zero point radius of the aperture mass for a simple single softened isothermal lens of variable Einstein radius, and for various combinations of aperture scale and polynomial order. Figure \ref{fg:zero_pt} shows the zero point radius plotted as a function of $\theta_E/R$ for an aperture radius of $R=120\arcsec$ and a polynomial filter with $l=5$. It can clearly be seen from the figure that the relationship between $R_0$ and $\theta_E$ appears to be linear. Different combinations of $l$ and $R$ yield similar linear results, though with slightly different slopes as $l$ is varied.
590:
591: Clearly as the lens model becomes more complicated, or less smooth, the relationship between the Einstein radius and the zero point radius will become less straightforward. However, it does seem that if these zero point contours can be resolved using the flexion aperture mass, this might provide a straightforward way to put at the very least broad constraints on the mass contained within the structures seen.
592: \subsection{Analytic Simulation of a Group of Galaxies}
593:
594: We now consider a group of softened isothermal profile galaxies generated as described in \S~\ref{subsec:analytic}. These galaxies were generated to lie within a region corresponding to a physical scale of $0.67$Mpc on a side at a redshift of $z_l=0.16$. The aperture mass statistic was calculated using both the polynomial and piecewise continuous filter functions described in \S~\ref{subsubsec:98} and \S~\ref{subsubsec:96}. In addition, our flexion data are generated using the method described in \S~\ref{subsec:bg}.
595:
596: \begin{figure}
597: \center
598: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f6a.png}
599: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f6b.png}
600: \caption{The aperture mass signal to noise contours computed using simulated data and overlaid on an image of the underlying convergence. The aperture mass is computed using piecewise continuous filter functions with $\nu_1=0.05$ ({\textit Top Panel}) and $\nu_1=0.1$ ({\textit Bottom Panel}). For each, the outer radius is taken to be $\nu_2=0.95$. \label{fg:an_96}}
601: \end{figure}
602:
603: Figure \ref{fg:an_96} shows the aperture mass signal to noise contours computed using the piecewise-continuous filter functions of \S~\ref{subsubsec:96} using an aperture scale of $R=90\arcsec$ and taking $\nu_1=0.05$ and $0.1$. With both values of the inner radius, the signal to noise contours are seen to quite accurately trace the shape of the convergence, to a peak signal to noise of ${\cal S}_{peak}=5.0$ for $\nu_1=0.05$, and ${\cal S}_{peak}=5.1$ for $\nu_1=0.1$. As expected, the signal to noise contours for the smaller inner radius resolve structures on smaller scales than that for larger inner radius. Indeed, reconstructions involving a different aperture size, though not shown here, exhibit the expected behaviour in terms of the scale on which structures are resolved. In addition, a zero point contour is quite clearly resolved in both signal to noise plots.
604:
605: \begin{figure}
606: \center
607: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f7a.png}
608: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f7b.png}
609: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f7c.png}
610: \caption{The aperture mass signal to noise contours computed using simulated data and overlaid on an image of the underlying convergence. The aperture mass is computed using polynomial filter functions with $l=3,\ R=60\arcsec$ ({\textit Top Panel}), $l=5,\ R=90\arcsec$ ({\textit Middle Panel}), and $l=10\ R=90\arcsec$ ({\textit Bottom Panel}). The solid curves represent regions of positive signal, while the dashed curves represent regions of negative signal. \label{fg:an_98}}
611: \end{figure}
612: Figure \ref{fg:an_98} shows results obtained using the polynomial filter functions, shown for the combinations $[R,l]=[60\arcsec,3],[90\arcsec,5]$ and $[90\arcsec,10]$. The peak signal to noise obtained in these reconstructions is ${\cal S}_{peak}=4.1,\ 4.5$ and $4.2$, respectively. Here again the signal to noise contours accurately trace the shape of the galaxy group, and are able to resolve structures on subarcminute scales. In addition, as expected, we see that increasing the aperture size increases the minimum scale on which substructure can be resolved, and increasing the polynomial order allows us to probe these smaller-scale substructures. Further, we again resolve a zero-point contour, the radius of which, when compared to the linear relation shown in \S~\ref{subsec:simple}, yields an Einstein radius which is broadly consistent (within a factor of $\sim 2-3$) with that found by modelling all the mass contained in the lens as a single softened isothermal sphere.
613:
614: \begin{figure}
615: \center
616: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f8.png}
617: \caption{A reconstruction of the convergence from shear data using the finite field inversion technique of Seitz \& Schneider (2001); see text for details.\label{fg:shear}}
618: \end{figure}
619: As a check on the performance of this method, we compare our results to a weak lensing mass reconstruction, by using the measured ellipticities of our lensed images to perform a finite field inversion following the method of Seitz and Schneider (2001). The reconstruction was performed on a $100\times 100$ grid, with a smoothing scale of 120 pixels (0.048 times the image size) - chosen to be large enough to include averaging over sufficient background galaxies to lessen the noise from their intrinsic
620: ellipticity dispersion. The resulting mass reconstruction is shown in figure \ref{fg:shear}. This reconstruction is clearly unable to resolve the small-scale structure of this galaxy group, or to accurately trace the overall shape of the convergence distribution.
621:
622: \subsection{Cluster of Galaxies from N-body Simulations}
623:
624: Finally, we consider a cluster of galaxies taken from the Millennium simulation and described in \S~\ref{subsec:nbody}. Figure \ref{fg:nbody} shows the signal to noise contours for the flexion aperture mass statistic applied to this cluster using the polynomial filter functions with $l=5$ and $R=60\arcsec,\ 90\arcsec$ and $120\arcsec$. The peak signal to noise for these maps is found to be ${\cal S}_{peak}=3.8,\ 3.0,$ and $3.3$, respectively. Similar results were obtained using the piecewise-continuous filter functions.
625:
626: \begin{figure}
627: \center
628: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f9a.png}
629: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f9b.png}
630: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f9c.png}
631: \caption{Aperture mass signal to noise contours computed using simulated data lensed through a cluster from the Millennium simulation, overlaid on the underlying convergence. Only positive signal to noise contours are plotted. The aperture mass was calculated using a polynomial filter function with $l=5$, and with aperture radii of $R=60\arcsec$ (\textit{top panel}), $R=90\arcsec$ (\textit{middle panel}), and $R=120\arcsec$ (\textit{bottom panel}). \label{fg:nbody}}
632: \end{figure}
633:
634: We expect, and indeed find, the signal to noise map to be somewhat noisier than that seen with the analytic simulations. This manifests as spurious detections on small scales of structures that do not exist, which undoubtedly result from using rather noisy data to compute the deflection angles. As expected, when the aperture scale is increased, these detections are removed, as the aperture mass becomes less sensitive to structures on those scales.
635:
636: While considerably noisier, the flexion aperture mass does still accurately trace the shape of the central part of the cluster, and resolves two smaller substructures (one to the left and one directly below the centre of the cluster) in all three signal to noise maps. However, as found in Leonard et al. (2007), the flexion measurements are generally quite insensitive to the smooth component of the cluster potential, so outside of the central, cuspy region, the flexion signal drops off rather quickly.
637:
638: Again, we can compare the results from flexion with that from shear. As for the analytic group, we use the Seitz and Schneider (2001) finite field inversion technique to reconstruct the convergence from our shear data. The mass was reconstructed on a $100\times 100$ grid, with a smoothing scale of 0.029 times the image size. The mass reconstruction is shown in figure \ref{fg:nbodyshear}. In this case, the shear does pick up the overall shape of the cluster quite accurately, but does not clearly resolve the smaller substructures seen in the flexion aperture mass signal to noise map.
639: \begin{figure}
640: \center
641: \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{f10.png}
642: \caption{Shear reconstruction of the convergence field using the finite field inversion technique described in Seitz and Schneider (2001); see text for details. \label{fg:nbodyshear}}
643: \end{figure}
644:
645: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
646:
647: In this paper, we have derived an aperture mass statistic for (first) flexion, and shown that it provides a robust method for detecting structures within clusters of galaxies on sub-arcminute scales. Whilst the filter functions used here are by no means optimal, they offer an excellent proof of concept for this technique, and show that even using non-optimal filters, and a moderate number density of background galaxies, mass concentrations can be detected on a range of different scales with an appreciable peak signal to noise that varies very little with changes to the aperture scale radius or filter parameters ($\nu_1$, $\nu_2$, and $l$).
648:
649: We have also shown that the zero point contours of the aperture mass map can be clearly resolved in simulated data, and described briefly how these zero points might be used to provide an estimate of the mass contained in structures identified using this method. This is, of course, model- and filter-dependent, but might provide a good starting point for maximum-likelihood modelling in clusters of galaxies where flexion constraints are incorporated to describe the substructure within the cluster, for example.
650:
651: It is clear that the filters used in the preceding analysis are not optimised for any particular lens, but can be used to detect structures with a range of different mass profiles. This will be useful for detecting substructures where one has little or no prior knowledge of the mass profiles. However, it is clear that improvements can be made to the method, and improved signal to noise obtained, by using filters that are tailored to the structures being studied. This will be particularly important when dealing with noisier data, or data for which the background source number density is low, thus reducing the maximum attainable signal to noise.
652:
653: Our understanding of the physical properties of galaxy clusters and their utility as cosmological probes will be greatly enhanced with the advent of large surveys such as the Dark Energy Survey (DES), augmented with complementary data from experiments such as the South Pole Telescope (SPT).
654: For the large cluster samples, gravitational flexion will provide constraints on the mass substructure of clusters at a higher resolution than weak lensing, and probes greater distances from the cluster centre than strong lensing. Clearly, a priority is to simultaneously use lensing data from various regimes in conjunction with other types of data to obtain a detailed multi-scale view of the largest bound structures in the universe.
655:
656: \section{acknowledgments}
657: We thank Anthony Challinor, Antony Lewis, Gordon Ogilvie and Peter Schneider for discussions.
658: We thank John Helly and Ian McCarthy for providing the Millennium Simulation cluster particle data.
659: AL is supported by a BP/STFC Dorothy Hodgkin Postgraduate Award, LJK is supported by a Royal Society University Research Fellowship, and SMW is supported by an STFC Postgraduate award.
660:
661: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
662: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bacon D.J. et al.}{2006}]{bgrt} Bacon
663: D.J., Goldberg D.M., Rowe B.T.P., Taylor A.N., 2006, MNRAS, 365, 414
664: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bartelmann M.}{2003}]{b03}
665: % Bartelmann, M., 2003, arXiv:astro-ph/0304162v1
666: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bahcall \& Fan}{1998}]{BF98}Bahcall N., Fan X., 1998, ApJ, 504, 1
667: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bernstein \& Jarvis}{2002}]{BJ02}Bernstein, G., Jarvis, M., 2002, AJ, 123, 583
668: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{De Lucia et al}{2004}]{DL04}De Lucia G. et al., 2004, MNRAS, 348, 333
669: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Eke et al.}{1998}]{E98}Eke V.R., Cole S., Frenk C.S., Patrick Henry J., 1998, MNRAS, 365, 414
670: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gavazzi and Soucail}{2007}]{GS07}Gaavzzi, R., Soucail, G., 2007, A\&A, 462, 459
671: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Goldberg D.M. and Bacon D.J.}{2005}]{gb05} Goldberg D.M., Bacon D.J., 2005, ApJ, 619, 741
672: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Goldberg D.M. and Leonard A.}{2007}]{gl07} Goldberg D.M., Leonard A., 2007, ApJ, 660,
673: 1003
674: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kaiser N. et al.}{1995}]{KSB} Kaiser, N., Squires, G., Broadhurst, T., 1995, ApJ, 449, 460
675: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Leonard A. et al.}{2007}]{LGHM}
676: Leonard A., Goldberg D.M., Haaga J.L., Massey R., 2007, ApJ, 666,
677: 51
678: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Massey R. \& Refregier A.}{2005}]{mr} Massey, R., and Refregier, A., 2005, MNRAS, 363, 197
679: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Massey R. et al}{2007}]{massey} Massey R., Rowe, B., Refregier, A., Bacon, D.J., Berg\'{e}, J., 2007, MNRAS, 380, 229
680: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Natarajan et al}{2007}]{nat}Natarajan P., De Lucia G., Springel V., 2007, MNRAS, 376, 180
681: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Okura Y. et al}{2007}]{okura1} Okura
682: Y., Umetsu K., Futamase T., 2007, ApJ, 660, 995
683: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Okura Y. et al}{2008}]{okura2} Okura
684: Y., Umetsu K., Futamase T., 2008, ApJ, 680, 1
685: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Refregier}{2003}]{ref} Refregier, A., 2003, MNRAS, 338, 35
686: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Refregier A. \& Bacon D.}{2003}]{rb} Refregier, A., and Bacon, D., 2003, MNRAS, 338, 48
687: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schneider P.}{1996}]{s96} Schneider,
688: P., 1996, MNRAS, 283, 837
689: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schneider P. et
690: al}{1998}]{s98}Schneider P., van Waerbeke L., Jain B., Kruse G., 1998, MNRAS, 296, 873
691: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Springel V. et al.}{2001}]{springel} Springel V., White S.D.M., Tormen G., Kauffmann G., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 726
692: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Seitz S. and Schneider P.}{2001}]{ss} Seitz, S., \& Schneider, P., 2001, A\&A, 374, 740
693: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Springel V. et al.}{2005}]{mil}Springel, V., et al., 2005, Nature, 435, 629
694: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Taylor \& Babul}{2005}]{TB05}Taylor J.E.., Babul A.., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 515
695: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van Waerbeke et al.}{2006}]{W06}van Waerbeke, L., White, M., Hoekstra, H., Heymans, C., 2006, APh, 26, 91
696: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wang\&White}{2008}]{ww08}Wang J., White S.D.M., 2008, MNRAS submitted, arXiv:0809.1322v1
697:
698:
699: \end{thebibliography}
700:
701: \appendix
702:
703: \section[]{Relationship Between the Convergence and Flexion}
704:
705:
706: \label{ap:kernels}
707: The convergence can be related to the measured flexion in Fourier
708: space by (Bacon et al. 2006):
709: \begin{eqnarray}
710: \tilde{\kappa} &=& \frac{ik_1}{k_1^2+k_2^2}\tilde{{\cal
711: F}_1}+\frac{ik_2}{k_1^2+k_2^2}\tilde{{\cal F}_2}\nonumber\\
712: &=& \tilde{E}_1^\f\tilde{\f}_1+\tilde{E}_2^\f\tilde{\f}_2.
713: \label{eq:Fkern}
714: \end{eqnarray}
715:
716: This implies that the real-space relationship between $\kappa$ and the
717: flexion is a convolution:
718: \begin{equation}
719: \kappa=\frac{1}{2\pi}\left(E_1^{\f\ast}\otimes \f_1+E_2^{\f\ast}\otimes \f_2\right),
720: \end{equation}
721: or
722: \begin{equation}
723: \kappa(\bx)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\Re\left[\int d^2\bx^\prime
724: \f(\bx^\prime)E^\ast_\f(\bx-\bx^\prime)\right],
725: \end{equation}
726: where $E_\f$ is a convolution kernel to be determined.
727:
728: Noting that
729: \begin{equation}
730: F\left(\frac{ik_j}{|{\bf k}|^2}\right)=\frac{x_j}{2\pi|\bx|^2},
731: \end{equation}
732: where $F(f({\bf k}))$ denotes the fourier transform of the function
733: $f({\bf k})$, we find that
734: \begin{equation}
735: E_\f(X)=\frac{1}{X^\ast},
736: \end{equation}
737: where $X=x_1+ix_2=xe^{i\phi}$, and $\phi$ is the phase of the complex
738: number $X$.
739:
740:
741: \section[]{Expressing the Aperture mass statistic in terms of the E-mode flexion}
742: \label{ap:filt}
743:
744: The aperture mass is defined, in terms of the measured flexion, as
745: \begin{eqnarray}
746: \lefteqn{m(\bx_0)=}\nonumber\\
747: & &\Re\left[\int d^2\bx^\prime \f(\bx^\prime)\int d^2\bx\
748: E_\f^\ast(\bx+\bx_0-\bx^\prime)w(|\bx|)\right].
749: \end{eqnarray}
750: Making the transformation $\by=\bx^\prime-\bx_0$, and writing $d^2\bx
751: = x\ dx\ d\phi$, we obtain
752: \begin{eqnarray}
753: \label{eq:starthere}
754: \lefteqn{m(\bx_0)=}\nonumber\\
755: & &\Re\left[\int d^2\by\ \f(\by+\bx_0)\int_0^\infty x\ w(x)dx
756: \int_0^{2\pi}d\phi\ E_\f^\ast(X-Y)\right],\nonumber\\
757: \end{eqnarray}
758: where $X=x_1+ix_2=|\bx|e^{i\phi}$.
759: We consider the rightmost integral first, which can be rewritten as
760: \begin{equation}
761: I_1=\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{d\phi}{2\pi(X-Y)}.
762: \end{equation}
763: This integral has a regular singularity at $X=Y$, and using the
764: transformation $dX=iXd\phi$, can be expressed as a contour integral:
765: \begin{equation}
766: I_{1}=-\frac{i}{2\pi}\oint \frac{dX}{X(X-Y)},
767: \end{equation}
768: where the integration is carried out along a circular contour of
769: radius $|X|$. This integrand has two simple poles at $X=0$ and
770: $X=Y$. The residues at these singularities are given by
771: \begin{equation}
772: Res(X=0)= -\frac{1}{Y},\end{equation}\begin{equation}
773: Res(X=Y)= \ \frac{1}{Y}.
774: \end{equation}
775: Thus, applying the residue theorem,
776: \begin{equation}
777: I_{1}=-\frac{1}{Y}\Theta(|Y|-|X|),
778: \end{equation}
779: where
780: \begin{equation}
781: \Theta(x)=\begin{cases} 1 & x>0\\ 0 & x<0\end{cases}.
782: \end{equation}
783: Returning to equation \ref{eq:starthere}, we find that
784: \begin{eqnarray}
785: m(\bx_0)&=&-\Re\left[\int d^2\by\ \f(\by+\bx_0)\frac{1}{Y}\int_0^\infty x\ w(x)
786: \Theta(y-x)\ dx\right]\nonumber\\
787: &=&-\Re\left[\int d^2\by\ \f(\by-\bx_0)\frac{1}{Y}\int_0^y x\ w(x)\ dx
788: \right].\nonumber\\
789: \end{eqnarray}
790:
791: Now, the E-mode flexion is given by
792: \begin{eqnarray}
793: \f_E&=&\Re\left[\f e^{-i\phi}\right]\nonumber\\
794: &=& \Re\left[\f \frac{|Y|}{Y}\right],
795: \end{eqnarray}
796: thus we can write
797: \begin{equation}
798: m(\bx_0)=-\int d^2\by\ \f_E(\by-\bx_0)\left[\frac{1}{y}\int_0^y\ x\ w(x)\ dx\right],
799: \end{equation}
800: which leads directly to equations \ref{eq:mflex} and \ref{eq:qwflex}.
801:
802: Thus, we have expressed $Q_\f(x)$ in terms of $w_\f(x)$ as
803: \begin{equation}
804: Q_\f(x)=-\frac{1}{x}\int_0^x\ y\ w(y)\ dy.
805: \end{equation}
806: We now aim to derive the reverse relation; i.e. to express $w_\f(x)$
807: as a function of $Q_\f(x)$.
808:
809: Recall that first flexion is related to the convergence via
810: \begin{equation}
811: \f=\f_1+i\f_2=\partial\kappa=(\partial_1+i\partial_2)\kappa.
812: \end{equation}
813: It is useful to transform the derivative operators into polar
814: coordinates as
815: \begin{eqnarray}
816: \partial_1=\cos\phi\partial_r-\frac{\sin\phi}{r}\partial_\phi,\nonumber\\
817: \partial_2=\sin\phi\partial_r+\frac{\cos{\phi}}{r}\partial_\phi.
818: \end{eqnarray}
819: Using the above expressions, and recalling that the E-mode flexion is
820: defined as $\f_E\equiv\f_1\cos\phi+\f_2\sin\phi$, we find that the
821: E-mode flexion is related quite simply to the convergence via
822: $\f_E=\partial_r\kappa$. Thus, we can express the aperture mass
823: statistic as
824: \begin{eqnarray}
825: m(\bx_0)&=&\int d^2\bx\left(\frac{\partial\kappa}{\partial
826: r}\right)_{\bx+\bx_0} Q_\f(y)\nonumber\\
827: &=& \int_0^{2\pi}d\phi\int_0^\infty r\frac{\partial\kappa}{\partial r}\ dr.
828: \end{eqnarray}
829: Integrating the inner expression by parts and simplifying, we find that
830: \begin{equation}
831: m(\bx_0)=-\int d^2\bx\
832: \kappa(\bx+\bx_0)\left(\frac{1}{r}Q_\f(r)+\frac{dQ_\f}{dr}\right).
833: \end{equation}
834: Comparing this expression to equation \ref{eq:apmass}, it follows that
835: \begin{equation}
836: w_\f(r)=-\frac{1}{r}Q_\f(r)-\frac{dQ_\f}{dr}.
837: \end{equation}
838:
839:
840: %\newpage
841: %
842: \label{lastpage}
843:
844: \end{document}
845: