1: \documentclass{article}

2: \usepackage{ifthen}

3: 

4: % this line will get changed by the Makefile as appropriate

5: \def \version {_astro-ph}

6: 

7: \ifthenelse{\equal{\version}{_apj}}

8: {

9: \usepackage{aasms4}

10: % here we define the \astrophref command

11: 

12: % non hyperref version

13: 

14: \newcommand{\astrophref}[1]{{\tt http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/#1}}

15: \newcommand{\myhref}[1]{{\tt #1}}

16: 

17: % and override href

18: \newcommand{\href}[2]{{\tt #2}}

19: 

20: \def \figwidth {0.6 \linewidth}

21: }

22: {

23: \usepackage{emulateapj}

24: \usepackage{apjfonts}

25: \usepackage{hyperref}

26: % here we define the \astrophref command

27: 

28: % hyperref version

29: \newcommand{\astrophref}[1]{\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/#1}{\tt{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/#1}}}

30: \newcommand{\myhref}[1]{\href{#1}{\tt{#1}}}

31: 

32: \def \figwidth {\linewidth}

33: }

34: 

35: \ifthenelse{\equal{\version}{_working}}

36: {

37: }

38: {

39: \def \today {March 22, 2000}

40: }

41: 

42: \usepackage{astrobib}

43: 

44: \usepackage{epsfig}

45: \def \beginfig          {\begin{figure}}

46: \def \endfig            {\end{figure}}

47: 

48: \def \begineq           {\begin{equation}}

49: \def \endeq             {\end{equation}}

50: 

51: \def \etal 	{{\it et al. }}

52: 

53: \def \d {\partial}

54: 

55: %gives greater than or approx

56: \def\gtorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$}\mkern-14mu

57:              \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

58: %give less than or approx

59: \def\ltorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$}\mkern-14mu

60:              \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

61: 

62: \def \lsim {\ltorder}

63: \def \gsim {\gtorder}

64: \def \hide#1{}

65: \def \half {{1\over 2}}

66: \def \sinc {{\rm sinc}}

67: 

68: \def \max {{\rm max}}

69: \def \min {{\rm min}}

70: 

71: 

72: \def \Hz {{\rm Hz}}

73: \def \kstar {{k_\ast}}

74: 

75: 

76: 

77: 

78: 

79: % bold face latin

80: \def\ba {{\bf a}}

81: \def\bb {{\bf b}}

82: \def\bc {{\bf c}}

83: \def\bd {{\bf d}}

84: \def\be {{\bf e}}

85: \def\bg {{\bf g}}

86: \def\bh {{\bf h}}

87: \def\bi {{\bf i}}

88: \def\bj {{\bf j}}

89: \def\bk {{\bf k}}

90: \def\bl {{\bf l}}

91: \def\bm {{\bf m}}

92: \def\bn {{\bf n}}

93: \def\bo {{\bf o}}

94: \def\bp {{\bf p}}

95: \def\bq {{\bf q}}

96: \def\br {{\bf r}}

97: \def\bs {{\bf s}}

98: \def\bt {{\bf t}}

99: \def\bu {{\bf u}}

100: \def\bv {{\bf v}}

101: \def\bw {{\bf w}}

102: \def\bx {{\bf x}}

103: \def\by {{\bf y}}

104: \def\bz {{\bf z}}

105: \def\bA {{\bf A}}

106: \def\bB {{\bf B}}

107: \def\bC {{\bf C}}

108: \def\bD {{\bf D}}

109: \def\bE {{\bf E}}

110: \def\bF {{\bf F}}

111: \def\bG {{\bf G}}

112: \def\bH {{\bf H}}

113: \def\bI {{\bf I}}

114: \def\bJ {{\bf J}}

115: \def\bK {{\bf K}}

116: \def\bL {{\bf L}}

117: \def\bM {{\bf M}}

118: \def\bN {{\bf N}}

119: \def\bO {{\bf O}}

120: \def\bP {{\bf P}}

121: \def\bQ {{\bf Q}}

122: \def\bR {{\bf R}}

123: \def\bS {{\bf S}}

124: \def\bT {{\bf T}}

125: \def\bU {{\bf U}}

126: \def\bV {{\bf V}}

127: \def\bW {{\bf W}}

128: \def\bX {{\bf X}}

129: \def\bY {{\bf Y}}

130: \def\bZ {{\bf Z}}

131: 

132: % latin vectors

133: \def\va {{\vec a}}

134: \def\vb {{\vec b}}

135: \def\vc {{\vec c}}

136: \def\vd {{\vec d}}

137: \def\ve {{\vec e}}

138: \def\vf {{\vec f}}

139: \def\vg {{\vec g}}

140: \def\vh {{\vec h}}

141: \def\vi {{\vec i}}

142: \def\vj {{\vec j}}

143: \def\vk {{\vec k}}

144: \def\vl {{\vec l}}

145: \def\vm {{\vec m}}

146: \def\vn {{\vec n}}

147: \def\vo {{\vec o}}

148: \def\vp {{\vec p}}

149: \def\vq {{\vec q}}

150: \def\vr {{\vec r}}

151: \def\vs {{\vec s}}

152: \def\vt {{\vec t}}

153: \def\vu {{\vec u}}

154: \def\vv {{\vec v}}

155: \def\vw {{\vec w}}

156: \def\vx {{\vec x}}

157: \def\vy {{\vec y}}

158: \def\vz {{\vec z}}

159: \def\vA {{\vec A}}

160: \def\vB {{\vec B}}

161: \def\vC {{\vec C}}

162: \def\vD {{\vec D}}

163: \def\vE {{\vec E}}

164: \def\vF {{\vec F}}

165: \def\vG {{\vec G}}

166: \def\vH {{\vec H}}

167: \def\vI {{\vec I}}

168: \def\vJ {{\vec J}}

169: \def\vK {{\vec K}}

170: \def\vL {{\vec L}}

171: \def\vM {{\vec M}}

172: \def\vN {{\vec N}}

173: \def\vO {{\vec O}}

174: \def\vP {{\vec P}}

175: \def\vQ {{\vec Q}}

176: \def\vR {{\vec R}}

177: \def\vS {{\vec S}}

178: \def\vT {{\vec T}}

179: \def\vU {{\vec U}}

180: \def\vV {{\vec V}}

181: \def\vW {{\vec W}}

182: \def\vX {{\vec X}}

183: \def\vY {{\vec Y}}

184: \def\vZ {{\vec Z}}

185: 

186: % bold face greek

187: \def\balpha {\mbox{\boldmath $\alpha$}}

188: \def\bbeta {\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}}

189: \def\bgamma {\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}}

190: \def\bdelta {\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}

191: \def\bepsilon {\mbox{\boldmath $\epsilon$}}

192: \def\bzeta {\mbox{\boldmath $\zeta$}}

193: \def\btheta {\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}}

194: \def\biota {\mbox{\boldmath $\iota$}}

195: \def\bkappa {\mbox{\boldmath $\kappa$}}

196: \def\blambda {\mbox{\boldmath $\lambda$}}

197: \def\bmu {\mbox{\boldmath $\mu$}}

198: \def\bnu  {\mbox{\boldmath $\nu $}}

199: \def\bxi {\mbox{\boldmath $\xi$}}

200: \def\bomicron {\mbox{\boldmath $\omicron$}}

201: \def\bpi {\mbox{\boldmath $\pi$}}

202: \def\brho {\mbox{\boldmath $\rho$}}

203: \def\bsigma {\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}

204: \def\btau {\mbox{\boldmath $\tau$}}

205: \def\bupsilon {\mbox{\boldmath $\upsilon$}}

206: \def\bphi {\mbox{\boldmath $\phi$}}

207: \def\bchi {\mbox{\boldmath $\chi$}}

208: \def\bpsi {\mbox{\boldmath $\psi$}}

209: \def\bomega {\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}}

210: \def\bAlpha {\mbox{\boldmath $\Alpha$}}

211: \def\bBeta {\mbox{\boldmath $\Beta$}}

212: \def\bGamma {\mbox{\boldmath $\Gamma$}}

213: \def\bDelta {\mbox{\boldmath $\Delta$}}

214: \def\bEpsilon {\mbox{\boldmath $\Epsilon$}}

215: \def\bZeta {\mbox{\boldmath $\Zeta$}}

216: \def\bEta {\mbox{\boldmath $\Eta$}}

217: \def\bTheta {\mbox{\boldmath $\Theta$}}

218: \def\bIota {\mbox{\boldmath $\Iota$}}

219: \def\bKappa {\mbox{\boldmath $\Kappa$}}

220: \def\bLambda {\mbox{\boldmath $\Lambda$}}

221: \def\bMu {\mbox{\boldmath $\Mu$}}

222: \def\bNu  {\mbox{\boldmath $\Nu $}}

223: \def\bXi {\mbox{\boldmath $\Xi$}}

224: \def\bOmicron {\mbox{\boldmath $\Omicron$}}

225: \def\bPi {\mbox{\boldmath $\Pi$}}

226: \def\bRho {\mbox{\boldmath $\Rho$}}

227: \def\bSigma {\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}

228: \def\bTau {\mbox{\boldmath $\Tau$}}

229: \def\bUpsilon {\mbox{\boldmath $\Upsilon$}}

230: \def\bPhi {\mbox{\boldmath $\Phi$}}

231: \def\bChi {\mbox{\boldmath $\Chi$}}

232: \def\bPsi {\mbox{\boldmath $\Psi$}}

233: \def\bOmega {\mbox{\boldmath $\Omega$}}

234: 

235: % greek vectors

236: \def\valpha {{\vec \alpha}}

237: \def\vbeta {{\vec \beta}}

238: \def\vgamma {{\vec \gamma}}

239: \def\vdelta {{\vec \delta}}

240: \def\vepsilon {{\vec \epsilon}}

241: \def\vzeta {{\vec \zeta}}

242: \def\veta {{\vec \eta}}

243: \def\vtheta {{\vec \theta}}

244: \def\viota {{\vec \iota}}

245: \def\vkappa {{\vec \kappa}}

246: \def\vlambda {{\vec \lambda}}

247: \def\vmu {{\vec \mu}}

248: \def\vnu  {{\vec \nu }}

249: \def\vxi {{\vec \xi}}

250: \def\vomicron {{\vec \omicron}}

251: \def\vpi {{\vec \pi}}

252: \def\vrho {{\vec \rho}}

253: \def\vsigma {{\vec \sigma}}

254: \def\vtau {{\vec \tau}}

255: \def\vupsilon {{\vec \upsilon}}

256: \def\vphi {{\vec \phi}}

257: \def\vchi {{\vec \chi}}

258: \def\vpsi {{\vec \psi}}

259: \def\vomega {{\vec \omega}}

260: \def\vAlpha {{\vec \Alpha}}

261: \def\vBeta {{\vec \Beta}}

262: \def\vGamma {{\vec \Gamma}}

263: \def\vDelta {{\vec \Delta}}

264: \def\vEpsilon {{\vec \Epsilon}}

265: \def\vZeta {{\vec \Zeta}}

266: \def\vEta {{\vec \Eta}}

267: \def\vTheta {{\vec \Theta}}

268: \def\vIota {{\vec \Iota}}

269: \def\vKappa {{\vec \Kappa}}

270: \def\vLambda {{\vec \Lambda}}

271: \def\vMu {{\vec \Mu}}

272: \def\vNu  {{\vec \Nu }}

273: \def\vXi {{\vec \Xi}}

274: \def\vOmicron {{\vec \Omicron}}

275: \def\vPi {{\vec \Pi}}

276: \def\vRho {{\vec \Rho}}

277: \def\vSigma {{\vec \Sigma}}

278: \def\vTau {{\vec \Tau}}

279: \def\vUpsilon {{\vec \Upsilon}}

280: \def\vPhi {{\vec \Phi}}

281: \def\vChi {{\vec \Chi}}

282: \def\vPsi {{\vec \Psi}}

283: \def\vOmega {{\vec \Omega}}

284: 

285: %

286: %  These Macros are taken from the AAS TeX macro package version 4.0.

287: %  Include this file in your LaTeX source only if you are not using

288: %  the AAS TeX macro package and need to resolve the macro definitions

289: %  in the BibTeX entries returned by the ADS abstract service.

290: %

291: %  For more information on the AASTeX macro package, please see the URL

292: %	http://www.aas.org/publications/aastex.html

293: %  For more information about ADS abstract server, please see the URL

294: %	http://adswww.harvard.edu/ads_abstracts.html

295: %

296: 

297: % Abbreviations for journals.  The object here is to provide authors

298: % with convenient shorthands for the most "popular" (often-cited)

299: % journals; the author can use these markup tags without being concerned

300: % about the exact form of the journal abbreviation, or its formatting.

301: % It is up to the keeper of the macros to make sure the macros expand

302: % to the proper text.  If macro package writers agree to all use the

303: % same TeX command name, authors only have to remember one thing, and

304: % the style file will take care of editorial preferences.  This also

305: % applies when a single journal decides to revamp its abbreviating

306: % scheme, as happened with the ApJ (Abt 1991).

307: 

308: % \let\jnl@style=\rm

309: % \def#1{{\jnl@style#1}}

310: 

311: \def\aj{{AJ}}                   % Astronomical Journal

312: \def\araa{{ARA\&A}}             % Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys

313: \def\apj{{ApJ}}                 % Astrophysical Journal

314: \def\apjl{{ApJ}}                % Astrophysical Journal, Letters

315: \def\apjs{{ApJS}}               % Astrophysical Journal, Supplement

316: \def\ao{{Appl.~Opt.}}           % Applied Optics

317: \def\apss{{Ap\&SS}}             % Astrophysics and Space Science

318: \def\aap{{A\&A}}                % Astronomy and Astrophysics

319: \def\aapr{{A\&A~Rev.}}          % Astronomy and Astrophysics Reviews

320: \def\aaps{{A\&AS}}              % Astronomy and Astrophysics, Supplement

321: \def\azh{{AZh}}                 % Astronomicheskii Zhurnal

322: \def\baas{{BAAS}}               % Bulletin of the AAS

323: \def\jrasc{{JRASC}}             % Journal of the RAS of Canada

324: \def\memras{{MmRAS}}            % Memoirs of the RAS

325: \def\mnras{{MNRAS}}             % Monthly Notices of the RAS

326: \def\pra{{Phys.~Rev.~A}}        % Physical Review A: General Physics

327: \def\prb{{Phys.~Rev.~B}}        % Physical Review B: Solid State

328: \def\prc{{Phys.~Rev.~C}}        % Physical Review C

329: \def\prd{{Phys.~Rev.~D}}        % Physical Review D

330: \def\pre{{Phys.~Rev.~E}}        % Physical Review E

331: \def\prl{{Phys.~Rev.~Lett.}}    % Physical Review Letters

332: \def\pasp{{PASP}}               % Publications of the ASP

333: \def\pasj{{PASJ}}               % Publications of the ASJ

334: \def\qjras{{QJRAS}}             % Quarterly Journal of the RAS

335: \def\skytel{{S\&T}}             % Sky and Telescope

336: \def\solphys{{Sol.~Phys.}}      % Solar Physics

337: \def\sovast{{Soviet~Ast.}}      % Soviet Astronomy

338: \def\ssr{{Space~Sci.~Rev.}}     % Space Science Reviews

339: \def\zap{{ZAp}}                 % Zeitschrift fuer Astrophysik

340: \def\nat{{Nature}}              % Nature

341: \def\iaucirc{{IAU~Circ.}}       % IAU Cirulars

342: \def\aplett{{Astrophys.~Lett.}} % Astrophysics Letters

343: \def\apspr{{Astrophys.~Space~Phys.~Res.}}

344:                 % Astrophysics Space Physics Research

345: \def\bain{{Bull.~Astron.~Inst.~Netherlands}} 

346:                 % Bulletin Astronomical Institute of the Netherlands

347: \def\fcp{{Fund.~Cosmic~Phys.}}  % Fundamental Cosmic Physics

348: \def\gca{{Geochim.~Cosmochim.~Acta}}   % Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta

349: \def\grl{{Geophys.~Res.~Lett.}} % Geophysics Research Letters

350: \def\jcp{{J.~Chem.~Phys.}}      % Journal of Chemical Physics

351: \def\jgr{{J.~Geophys.~Res.}}    % Journal of Geophysics Research

352: \def\jqsrt{{J.~Quant.~Spec.~Radiat.~Transf.}}

353:                 % Journal of Quantitiative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer

354: \def\memsai{{Mem.~Soc.~Astron.~Italiana}}

355:                 % Mem. Societa Astronomica Italiana

356: \def\nphysa{{Nucl.~Phys.~A}}   % Nuclear Physics A

357: \def\physrep{{Phys.~Rep.}}   % Physics Reports

358: \def\physscr{{Phys.~Scr}}   % Physica Scripta

359: \def\planss{{Planet.~Space~Sci.}}   % Planetary Space Science

360: \def\procspie{{Proc.~SPIE}}   % Proceedings of the SPIE

361: 

362: \let\astap=\aap

363: \let\apjlett=\apjl

364: \let\apjsupp=\apjs

365: \let\applopt=\ao

366: 

367: 

368: 

369: % passbands

370: \def \I {{\rm I}}

371: \def \V {{\rm V}}

372: 

373: \makeatletter

374: \newenvironment{inlinetable}{%

375: \def\@captype{table}%

376: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}\footnotesize}

377: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}

378: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{%

379: \def\@captype{figure}%

380: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}

381: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}

382: \makeatother

383: 

384: 

385: 

386: \begin{document}

387: 

388: \title{Large-Scale Cosmic Shear Measurements}

389: 

390: % AAS style

391: \author{Nick Kaiser, Gillian Wilson and Gerard A.~Luppino}

392: \affil{Institute for Astronomy, U.~Hawaii \\

393: 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 \\

394: {\tt kaiser@hawaii.edu}, {\tt http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/$\sim$kaiser}}

395: 

396: % standard latex

397: % \author{TBD \\

398: % Institute for Astronomy, U.~Hawaii}

399: % \maketitle

400: 

401: 

402: \begin{abstract} {

403: We present estimates of the gravitational lensing shear variance obtained

404: from images taken at the CFHT using the UH8K CCD mosaic camera.

405: Six fields were observed for a total of 1 hour each in V and I,

406: resulting in catalogs containing $\sim 20,000$ galaxies per field, with

407: properly calibrated and optimally weighted shear estimates.  These

408: were averaged in cells of sizes ranging from $1'.875$ to

409: $30'$ to obtain estimates of the cosmic shear variance 

410: $\langle \overline{\bgamma}^2\rangle$, with

411: uncertainty estimated from the scatter among the estimates for the 6 fields.

412: Our most reliable estimator for cosmic shear is provided by the 

413: cross-correlation of the shear measured in the two passbands.

414: At scales $\lsim 10'$ the results are in good agreement with

415: those of \citeN{vwme+00}, \citeN{bre00} and \citeN{wtk+00} and with

416: currently fashionable cosmological models.  

417: At larger scales the shear variance falls below 

418: the theoretical predictions, and on the largest scales we find 

419: a null detection of shear variance averaged in $30'$ cells of

420: $\langle \overline{\bgamma}^2 \rangle = (0.28 \pm 1.84) \times 10^{-5}$.

421: }\end{abstract}

422: 

423: 

424: 

425: \keywords{Cosmology: observations --- dark matter --- 

426: gravitational lensing --- large-scale structure of Universe --- galaxies: photometry}

427: 

428: \section{Introduction}

429: 

430: Weak lensing provides a potentially powerful probe of mass fluctuations in

431: the Universe (\citeNP{gunn67}; \citeNP{mellier99} and references therein).  

432: Three independent groups have recently presented

433: estimates of the shear variance from deep `blank-field' CCD imaging

434: surveys. 

435: \citeNP{vwme+00} (hereafter vWME+) measured the shear variance in circular cells

436: of radii ranging from $0'.7$ to $3'.5$;

437: \citeNP{bre00} (hereafter BRE) measured the shear variance in square cells of

438: side $8'.0$ and \citeNP{wtk+00} (hereafter WTK+) have provided estimates of

439: the shear-shear correlation function at separations $3'.25$, $8'.5$ and $22'.0$.

440: Here we present shear variance measurements from $\simeq 1.5$ square degrees

441: of deep photometry obtained as part of our ongoing weak lensing

442: survey.  We find results which are broadly in good agreement with the

443: recently published estimates.

444: 

445: \section{The Data}

446: 

447: The data were taken at the 3.6m CFHT telescope using the 

448: $8192 \times 8192$ pixel UH8K camera at prime focus.

449: The camera delivers a field size of $0^\circ.5$ with $0''.207$ pixels.

450: Our survey strategy has been to target blank fields in six widely separated

451: areas for ease of scheduling, and in each area we plan to make $6$ or so

452: pointings scattered over a region of extent $\sim 3^\circ$.

453: In January 1999 the UH8K was replaced by the CFH12K camera. 

454: By that time we had completed

455: 1 hour integrations in both V and I for two pointings in each of three areas.

456: The field names, centers and also the estimated seeing 

457: are given in table \ref{tab:fields}. 

458: One of the 8 devices in the mosaic (lying in the NW corner of our images)

459: has very poor charge transfer efficiency and the data from this device

460: were discarded.  After further masking of regions around

461: bright stars the total useful solid angle per field is $\simeq 0.16$

462: square degrees. 

463: 

464: 

465: \begin{table*}[htbp!]

466: \begin{center}

467: \caption{Field centers and seeing}

468: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}

469: \hline

470: \hline

471: area & pointing	& RA (J2000)	& DEC (J2000)	& $l$		& $b$	& FWHM(I)	& FWHM(V)	\\

472: \hline

473: 1650	& 1	& 16:51:49.0	& 34:55:2.0 	& $57.37$	& $38.67$	& $0''.82$	& $0''.85$	\\

474: 	& 3	& 16:56:0.0	& 35:45:0.0 	& $58.58$	& $37.95$	& $0''.85$	& $0''.72$	\\

475: Groth	& 1	& 14:16:46.0	& 52:30:12.0	& $96.60$	& $60.04$	& $0''.80$	& $0''.93$	\\

476: 	& 3	& 14:9:0.0	& 51:30:0.0 	& $97.19$	& $61.57$	& $0''.70$	& $0''.85$	\\

477: Lockman	& 1	& 10:52:43.0	& 57:28:48.0 	& $149.28$	& $53.15$	& $0''.83$	& $0''.85$	\\

478: 	& 2	& 10:56:43.0	& 58:28:48.0 	& $147.47$	& $52.83$ 	& $0''.84$	& $0''.86$ 	\\	

479: \hline

480: \end{tabular}

481: \label{tab:fields}

482: \end{center}

483: \end{table*}

484: 

485: \section{Data Reduction}

486: 

487: The data were reduced much as for our MS0302 supercluster observations \cite{kwld99}.

488: After flat fielding, an object finder was applied to each image, 

489: and a set of bright but non-saturated stars extracted for registration

490: purposes.  The positions of these stars, along with celestial coordinates from the

491: USNOA \cite{usnoa} catalog, were used to find a mapping from image pixel coordinates to

492: orthographic sky coordinates.  

493: 

494: Images of the stars were analyzed to generate

495: a model for the point spread function

496: (PSF) $g(\bx; \br)$, this being the 2-dimensional profile of a star

497: with centroid at $\br$ measured in coordinates $\bx$ being measured relative to the

498: centroid.  The model is a sum of 2-D image valued modes $g_i(\bx)$:

499: $g(\bx; \br) = \sum_i c_i(\br) g_i(\bx)$

500: with coefficients $c_i(\br)$ which are low order polynomials in star position.

501: We found a 1st order model to be adequate to describe the variation of

502: the PSF with position on the chip (though see below). 

503: 

504: The astrometric solutions, the PSF models, and also standard

505: star observations were first used to 

506: create a set of photometrically calibrated `homogenized' images which were

507: degraded to have a common identical PSF.  These images were 

508: compared in order to identify cosmic rays

509: and other transient events.

510: Next, for each raw image we generated a re-circularized image

511: by convolving with a 90-degree rotated version of the PSF model.  These, as well as the

512: raw images, were then warped to sky coordinates, with previously identified cosmic rays

513: being removed, and the stacks of images combined to provide a quilt of overlapping

514: images.  This procedure results in three images: a median of the raw images

515: (in which the PSF is generally

516: non-circular), a median of the re-circularized images, 

517: and also a sky-noise image.

518: The final summed images were sampled with $0''.15$ pixel size.

519: 

520: The final object catalogs were obtained by applying {\tt hfindpeaks}

521: to the median averaged raw images, this program having been modified in

522: order to allow properly for the non-trivial noise correlations

523: in the final images.

524: After applying aperture photometry analysis, shapes of the objects were

525: measured as described

526: in \citeN{kaiser00}.  The essential result of this is a polarization vector

527: $q_\alpha = M_{\alpha l m} \int d^2 x\; w(x) x_l x_m f(\bx)$ 

528: formed as a combination of weighted second moments of the re-circularized image,

529: and a polarizability tensor which describes the response of the

530: polarization to gravitational shear.

531: The weight function $w(x)$ was taken to be a Gaussian ball of 2 pixels in scale length.

532: For convenience, the quantities actually generated were the normalized polarization

533: $\hat q_\alpha = q_\alpha / \sqrt{q_\beta q_\beta}$ and a

534: polarizability $Q$ defined such that for galaxies with this shape and size,

535: the expectation value of $\hat q_\alpha$ is $\langle \hat q_\alpha \rangle

536: = Q \gamma_\alpha$.  The $q_\alpha$ values were corrected for

537: artificial shear introduced in the image warping by

538: slight errors in our astrometric solution.

539: 

540: Finally a selection on significance of $4 \le \nu \le 100$ was applied to

541: select a `faint galaxy' catalog.  The corresponding magnitude limits are

542: somewhat fuzzy since significance depends on both size and magnitude.

543: The counts (number per magnitude interval) turn over at about $m_\I \simeq 24$ and 

544: $m_\V \simeq 25$.  Numbers of objects in the final catalogs are shown in

545: table \ref{tab:galcats}. The density of objects on the sky is very similar to

546: that in the images obtained by vWME+, WTK+, and slightly higher than the density

547: of objects in the BRE sample, so our shear

548: variance estimates should be more or less directly comparable.

549: 

550: Given a single galaxy, a fair (but very noisy) estimate of the shear 

551: is $\gamma_\alpha = \hat q_\alpha / Q$.  However, 

552: since the normalized polarization response $Q$ varies with shape and

553: size of the object (small objects having very little response for example),

554: to measure the mean shear in a region containing $N$

555: galaxies one should weight the individual estimates by $Q^2$ so the

556: optimal mean shear estimate is 

557: $\overline{\gamma}_\alpha = \sum Q \hat q_\alpha / \sum Q^2 $.

558: This assumes that one has little prior knowledge of the

559: of galaxy redshifts.  

560: If the averaging region contains a large number of galaxies, as

561: is the case for the cells considered here, one can replace 

562: $\sum  Q^2$ by $N \langle Q^2 \rangle$ 

563: where the $\langle Q^2 \rangle$ is an average over all of the

564: galaxies in the catalog.

565: The optimal mean shear is then the average of 

566: weighted shear values for the individual galaxies: 

567: $\gamma_G = \omega_G \hat q_G / Q_G$, with normalized weight

568: $\omega_G \equiv Q_G^2 / \langle Q^2 \rangle$.

569: The quantity $\langle Q^2\rangle$ 

570: is a useful measure of the image quality.  It is equal to

571: the inverse shear variance per galaxy, so, for instance, the statistical

572: uncertainty in the mean shear $\overline{\gamma}$ 

573: measured from a sample of $N$ galaxies is

574: $\sigma^2_{\overline{\gamma}} = 1 / (N \langle Q^2 \rangle)$.  The values

575: of $\langle Q^2 \rangle$ are also given in table \ref{tab:galcats}.

576:  

577: Preliminary results of this analysis \cite{wkl99} in the form of estimates

578: of the net shear for each of the six fields and for catalogs

579: generated from the I and V images separately gave shear values typically

580: of about 1\%, but with a few larger values.  These, however, showed little

581: correlation between the two passbands, suggesting that the results were

582: contaminated by some systematic error.  Examination of the

583: re-circularized images of the stars in the fields with seemingly spurious

584: shear values revealed at least a major part of the problem.  

585: The mean stellar polarization

586: was found to vary systematically with magnitude.  This is to be expected for

587: very bright stars where the pixels saturate and charge begins to bleed along

588: the slow direction of the CCD.  The effect found here had the same signature

589: (a trend for $q_1$ to become negative for bright objects) but appeared

590: at a low level and, unexpectedly, for stars much fainter than the saturation

591: limit.  The result was that in some cases our PSF model fitting procedure,

592: which weighted stars according to brightness, did not correctly recircularize

593: the faint stars as it should (since we require the PSF appropriate for

594: faint galaxies). 

595: The effect seemed to be variable, and also

596: tended to be associated with particular chips.

597: As a simple fix, 

598: we fit the residual polarizations for the

599: faintest stars ($I > 18$, $V > 21$) to a 4th order spatial 

600: polynomial and then used a

601: smear polarizability analogous to that defined by 

602: \citeN{ksb95} to correct the galaxy $q_\alpha$ values.

603: This reduced the spurious shear values considerably.  

604: 

605: \begin{inlinetable}

606: \caption{Galaxy catalogs}

607: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}

608: \hline

609: \hline

610: field	& $N_\I$	&	$\langle Q^2 \rangle_\I$	& $N_\V$	&	$\langle Q^2 \rangle_\V$ \\

611: \hline

612:   1650 1 &  21569 &      1.527  	& 15403 &      1.234 \\

613:   1650 3 &  18187 &      1.785 		& 16518 &      1.147 \\

614:  Groth 1 &  27293 &      1.440 	& 16391 &      1.543 \\

615:  Groth 3 &  19162 &      1.254 	& 15876 &      1.775 \\

616: Lockman 1 &  20726 &      1.855 	& 20358 &      1.352 \\

617: Lockman 2 &  20017 &      1.630 	& 17779 &      1.417 \\

618: \hline

619: \end{tabular}

620: \label{tab:galcats}

621: \end{inlinetable}

622: 

623: \section{Cosmic Shear Variance}

624: 

625: We have chosen to focus here on a single simple statistic: the variance of the

626: shear averaged in cells of various sizes.   This is the statistic used by

627: vWME+ and BRE and is simply related to the shear covariance

628: function presented by WTK+. The cell averaged shear variance is also

629: simply computable from the spectrum of mass fluctuations (e.g.~\citeNP{k92b}), so this

630: provides a useful link between observation and theory.

631: Now each weighted shear estimate $\gamma_G$ consists of a random intrinsic

632: component $\gamma_{G{\rm int}}$ 

633: and a `cosmic' component proportional to the integral of the tidal field

634: along the line of sight.  Modeling the cosmic shear 

635: as the sum over a set of statistically independent screens, we have

636: \begineq

637: \gamma_G = \gamma_{G{\rm int}} + \omega_G

638: \sum_S \gamma_S(\btheta_G) \beta(z_G, z_S)

639: \endeq

640: where $\gamma_S(\btheta)$ is the shear field for 

641: the $S$th screen and for fictitious sources at

642: infinite distance, and $\beta \equiv {\rm max}(0, 1 - D_{SG} / D_{OG})$ is 

643: the usual ratio of angular diameter distances.

644: 

645: This model allows one to compute the variance of the shear averaged

646: over galaxies falling in a cell on the sky.  We will also be interested

647: in the co-variance of shear measured in different passbands.

648: Consider the mean shear 

649: $\overline{\gamma}_P = (1 / N_P) \sum \gamma_P$ for a specific cell and

650: for galaxies found in two passbands $P = A, B$.

651: Averaging over realizations of random intrinsic shear values,

652: and also averaging over an ensemble of realizations of cosmic shear

653: screens, yields

654: \begineq

655: \label{eq:shearvar0}

656: \langle \overline{\bgamma}_A \cdot \overline{\bgamma}_B \rangle

657: = {N_{AB} \over N_A N_B} \langle \bgamma_A \cdot \bgamma_B \rangle +

658: \sum\limits_S 

659: \langle \omega_A \beta_{AS} \rangle

660: \langle \omega_B \beta_{BS} \rangle

661: \langle \overline{\gamma}_S^2 \rangle

662: \endeq

663: where $N_{AB}$ is the number of objects in the cell which were detected in both

664: passbands.  This formula is also valid when $A$ and $B$ are the same.

665: The expectation value of the dot product of the cell averaged

666: shear is therefore equal to a noise term plus a 

667: cosmic term which is a sum of the cell-averaged shear variances for the screens.

668: Interestingly, the noise term involves the total shear

669: variance $\langle \bgamma_A \cdot \bgamma_B \rangle$, containing both

670: intrinsic

671: and cosmic contributions, which is convenient since this is the quantity

672: that one can actually measure.

673: In obtaining (\ref{eq:shearvar0}) we assumed that the faint galaxies

674: are randomly distributed on the sky, this being motivated by the

675: fact that the angular correlation function is very small,

676: with $w(\theta) \lsim 10^{-2}$

677: on all relevant scales. 

678: 

679: To implement this, for each field we averaged the shear in a 

680: grid of contiguous square cells of side $L$, and 

681: those cells in the lower quartile of occupation number were discarded.  

682: To obtain an estimate of the 

683: cosmic shear variance we then computed for each field

684: \begineq

685: \label{eq:covariance}

686: \langle \overline{\bgamma}^2 \rangle_{AB}  = 

687: {1 \over n_{\rm cells}} \sum\limits_{\rm cells} \left[

688: \overline{\bgamma}_A \cdot \overline{\bgamma}_{B} - 

689: N_{AB} \langle \bgamma_A \cdot \bgamma_B \rangle/ (N_A N_B) \right].

690: \endeq

691: The shear covariance functions are

692: $\langle {\bgamma}_\I \cdot {\bgamma}_\I \rangle = 1/ \langle Q^2 \rangle_\I$ and

693: $\langle {\bgamma}_\V \cdot {\bgamma}_\V \rangle = 1/ \langle Q^2 \rangle_\V$

694: whereas $\langle {\bgamma}_\I \cdot {\bgamma}_\V \rangle$ was 

695: estimated by correlating the shears for objects which were

696: detected in both the I and V catalogs.

697: The shear variances estimated from the separate fields

698: were then averaged together to obtain a final cosmic shear variance with

699: uncertainty estimated from the scatter of the field estimates about the mean.

700: 

701: The diagonal components of

702: $\langle \overline{\bgamma}^2 \rangle_{AB}$ provide

703: estimates for the shear variance for the respective passbands, 

704: with strength roughly proportional 

705: to the square of the mean distance to the galaxies

706: (assuming a spectrum of mass fluctuations with index $n \simeq -1$), and

707: the off-diagonal components should lie somewhere in between. 

708: The results are shown in figure \ref{fig:shearvar1} and in table \ref{tab:vardata}

709: and deviate somewhat from

710: this expectation: the I-V cross correlation 

711: lies systematically below both the I- and V-band

712: shear variance estimates.

713: These results are robust to changes in the

714: order of the polynomial in the stellar polarization model, and they

715: are not caused by a few discrepant cells. 

716: 

717: The difference between the I and V band shear variance may be due to

718: differences in the redshift distributions, some evidence

719: for which was found by \citeN{lk97} in their study of MS1054.  However, 

720: we typically find about 60\% of the galaxies are detected in both passbands,

721: so this requires fairly high redshifts for the blue galaxies.

722: For example, assume that the I-band sample has a redshift distribution

723: like that measured by Cowie (personal communication) in the range $23 < \I_{\rm AB} < 24.0$, but that

724: the V band sample contains an additional 40\% population of higher redshift galaxies.

725: If we place these at redshift 3, we find that the V-band shear variance is

726: about a factor 2 higher than the I-band, much as seen in figure \ref{fig:shearvar1}. 

727: However the I-V cross-correlation is then predicted 

728: to be about 30\% higher than the I-band variance, which is not seen.

729: 

730: The simplest

731: interpretation of these results is that the shear inferred from the

732: I- and V-band data separately has been inflated by 

733: residual systematic errors of some kind.

734: The level of these errors

735: is on the order of 2 percent rms shear on scales of a few arc-minutes, falling to

736: somewhat below the 1 percent level on $30'$ scales.

737: If so, the most reliable estimate of the

738: cosmic shear variance 

739: is provided by the I-V cross-correlation since systematic errors which

740: are uncorrelated between the passbands will cancel out.  Of course there is no

741: guarantee that the cross-correlation is not affected by some source of error

742: which is common to both passbands, a specific example of which is 

743: artificial shear arising from intrinsic

744: correlation of galaxy shapes in clusters etc.~due to tidal effects.

745: 

746: \begin{inlinefigure}

747: \centering\epsfig{file=shearvar1.ps,width=\figwidth}

748: \caption[Shear covariance matrix.]

749: {Estimates of the cosmic shear variance as a function of averaging scale $L$.

750: Lower panel shows the same data multiplied by $L$ to show more clearly the

751: large angular scale results.  The dotted lines are predictions for 

752: a currently fashionable cosmological model --- cluster normalised;

753: $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.3$; $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$; $\Gamma = 0.25$ --- from

754: \citeN{js97} for sources with an effective redshift (i.e.~equivalent

755: single screen redshift) of $z_{\rm eff} = 1.0$ and $z_{\rm eff} = 2.0$.

756: The points have been displaced slightly laterally for clarity.}

757: \label{fig:shearvar1}

758: \end{inlinefigure}

759: 

760: \begin{inlinetable}

761: \caption{Shear variance}

762: \begin{center}

763: \begin{tabular}{cccc}

764: \hline

765: \hline

766: $L$/arcmin & $10^4 \times \langle \overline{\gamma}^2 \rangle_{\I\I}$ &

767:  $10^4 \times\langle \overline{\gamma}^2 \rangle_{\V\V}$ &

768:  $10^4 \times\langle \overline{\gamma}^2 \rangle_{\I\V}$ 	\\

769: \hline

770: $            30$ & $      0.15 \pm       0.18$ & $      0.59 \pm       0.32$ & $      0.03 \pm       0.18$  \\

771: $            15$ & $      0.87 \pm       0.42$ & $      1.57 \pm       0.54$ & $      0.48 \pm       0.22$  \\

772: $           7.5$ & $      2.06 \pm       0.75$ & $      4.77 \pm       0.83$ & $      1.48 \pm       0.93$  \\

773: $          3.75$ & $      3.51 \pm       1.40$ & $      9.69 \pm       2.09$ & $      2.44 \pm       0.92$  \\

774: $         1.875$ & $      5.66 \pm       1.40$ & $     11.38 \pm       2.29$ & $      4.06 \pm       1.57$  \\

775: \hline

776: \end{tabular}

777: \label{tab:vardata}

778: \end{center}

779: \end{inlinetable}

780: 

781: \begin{inlinefigure}

782: \centering\epsfig{file=shearvar2.ps,width=\figwidth}

783: \caption[Shear variance vs scale]

784: {Our estimates of the cosmic shear variance from the I-V cross-correlator

785: are shown as the heavy points. Also shown are results from

786: vWME+, BRE, WTK+.  The error bars

787: on the vWME+ estimates are statistical only. All others are

788: total error including cosmic variance.

789: The lower panel again shows the same data multiplied by $L$ to show more clearly the

790: large angular scale results. 

791: The dotted lines are the \citeN{js97} predictions as in figure 

792: \ref{fig:shearvar1}.}

793: \label{fig:shearvar2}

794: \end{inlinefigure}

795: 

796: The I-V shear variance estimator is shown with an expanded vertical scale in figure

797: \ref{fig:shearvar2}.  Also shown are the recently announced

798: results.  The BRE result is shown as presented in their paper and with total

799: error estimate including cosmic variance. The vWME+ circular cell average shear

800: are plotted against $L = \sqrt \pi \theta$.  The vWME+ error bars are statistical

801: only.

802: WTK+ presented estimates of the ellipticity

803: correlation function $C_1(\theta) = \langle \epsilon_1(0) \epsilon_1(\theta) \rangle$. 

804: We have converted their $C_1(\theta)$ to an equivalent

805: shear variance using formulae from \citeN{k92b} with $\epsilon = 2 \gamma$

806: and  assuming a spectral index $n = -1$.  The lower panel shows the variance

807: multiplied by averaging box size $L$.  For a $n = -1$ spectrum, corresponding to a 

808: mass auto-correlation function $\xi(r) \propto 1 / r^2$, this 

809: quantity should independent of scale.

810: 

811: At small scales $\lsim 10$ arcmin there seems to be remarkably good agreement 

812: between the independent estimates.  Note that the measurements were made using

813: three separate observing facilities.

814: At $L = 3'.75$ we find 

815: $\langle \overline{\bgamma}^2 \rangle \simeq 2.5 \simeq 10^{-4}$.

816: This about a factor 4-5 lower than the 

817: prediction for a light-traces mass $\Omega_m = 1$ cosmology, 

818: and an effective redshift for the background

819: galaxies $z_{\rm eff} = 1$ \cite{k92b,js97}.

820: 

821: At larger scales the shear variance we find falls below that

822: of WTK+.  Their largest scale estimates appear to conflict

823: with our null result at about the 2-sigma level.

824: Our large-angle results are also smaller than the

825: $\Omega_{\rm m} = 0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$ theoretical model predictions.

826: 

827: \section{Discussion}

828: 

829: For an effective background galaxy redshift of $z_{\rm eff} \simeq 1.0$

830: these measurements probe mass fluctuations in a shell

831: peaked at $z \simeq 0.4$.

832: At this redshift the $30'$ field size corresponds 

833: to a comoving distance of about $6 h^{-1}$Mpc,

834: so the cell variances presented here probe scales in the range $0.4-6 h^{-1}$Mpc.

835: On the smaller end of this scale we find very good agreement with recently

836: announced estimates from other groups, and also with canonical cosmological theory

837: predictions.  It is hard to definitively rule out the possibility that the

838: small angle measurements are inflated by systematic errors, but one can safely

839: rule out theories such as light-traces mass high density models

840: which predict shear variance a factor $\sim 5$ higher than our results.

841: 

842: On larger scales our measurements are extremely precise, yet we find only

843: a null detection for our largest cells.  These results show that on large scales

844: the rms shear is at most a fraction of a percent.

845: The apparent discrepancy between these results and the theoretical predictions

846: is quite interesting, and suggests a steepening of the mass correlation

847: function at scales $\sim 1-2 h^{-1}$Mpc.  More data are needed however

848: to definitively confirm this.

849: 

850: \section{Acknowledgements}

851: 

852: The results here were extracted from data taken at the Canada France Hawaii Telescope.

853: The analysis was supported by NSF grants AST95-00515, AST99-70805.

854: GW gratefully acknowledges financial support from the

855: estate of Beatrice Watson Parrent and from Mr.~\& Mrs.~Frank 

856: W.~Hustace, Jr. We thank Peter Schneider and Gary Bernstein for helpful

857: suggestions.

858: 

859: 

860: 

861: 

862: \ifthenelse{\equal{\version}{_working}}

863: {

864: \bibliographystyle{apj}

865: \bibliography{astro,clusters,weaklensing,kaiser_ref,kaiser_nonref}

866: }

867: {

868: \begin{thebibliography}{}

869: 

870: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bacon}, {Refregier}, \& {Ellis}}{{Bacon}

871:   et~al.}{2000}]{bre00}

872: {Bacon}, D., {Refregier}, A.,  \& {Ellis}, R. 2000, \mnras\ submitted,

873:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0003008}{\tt astro-ph/0003008}, BRE

874: 

875: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gunn}}{{Gunn}}{1967}]{gunn67}

876: {Gunn}, J. 1967, \apj, 147, 61

877: 

878: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Jain} \& {Seljak}}{{Jain} \&

879:   {Seljak}}{1997}]{js97}

880: {Jain}, B.,  \& {Seljak}, U. 1997, \apj, 484, 560

881: 

882: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kaiser}{Kaiser}{1992}]{k92b}

883: Kaiser, N. 1992, ApJ, 388, 272

884: 

885: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kaiser}}{{Kaiser}}{2000}]{kaiser00}

886: {Kaiser}, N. 2000, \apj\ in press,

887:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9904003}{{\tt astro-ph/99004003}}

888: 

889: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kaiser, Squires, \& Broadhurst}{Kaiser

890:   et~al.}{1995}]{ksb95}

891: Kaiser, N., Squires, G.,  \& Broadhurst, T. 1995, ApJ, 449, 460

892: 

893: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kaiser} et~al.}{{Kaiser}

894:   et~al.}{1999}]{kwld99}

895: {Kaiser}, N., {Wilson}, G., {Luppino}, G.,  \& {Dahle}, H. 1999, \pasp\ in

896:   press, \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9907229}{{\tt

897:   astro-ph/9907229}}

898: 

899: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Luppino \& Kaiser}{Luppino \&

900:   Kaiser}{1997}]{lk97}

901: Luppino, G.,  \& Kaiser, N. 1997, ApJ, 475, 20

902: 

903: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Mellier}}{{Mellier}}{1999}]{mellier99}

904: {Mellier}, Y. 1999, \araa, In press

905: 

906: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Monet}}{{Monet}}{1998}]{usnoa}

907: {Monet}, D. 1998, \href{http://archive.eso.org/skycat/servers/usnoa}{{\tt

908:   http://archive.eso.org/skycat/servers/usnoa}}

909: 

910: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Van Waerbeke} et~al.}{{Van Waerbeke}

911:   et~al.}{2000}]{vwme+00}

912: {Van Waerbeke}, L., et~al. 2000, \aap\ submitted,

913:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0002500}{\tt astro-ph/0002500}, vWME+

914: 

915: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wilson}, {Kaiser}, \& {Luppino}}{{Wilson}

916:   et~al.}{1999}]{wkl99}

917: {Wilson}, G., {Kaiser}, N.,  \& {Luppino}, G. 1999, in Boston Gravitational

918:   Lensing Conference, ed. T.~{Brainerd} \& C.~{Kochanek}

919: 

920: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wittman} et~al.}{{Wittman}

921:   et~al.}{2000}]{wtk+00}

922: {Wittman}, D., {Tyson}, J., {Kirkman}, D., {Dell'Antonio}, I.,  \& {Bernstein},

923:   G. 2000, Nature submitted,

924:   \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0003014}{\tt astro-ph/0003013}, WTK+

925: 

926: \end{thebibliography}

927: 

928: }

929: 

930: \end{document}

931: 

932: