1: \documentstyle[emulateapj]{article}
2: %\input{psfig}
3: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,psfig,11pt]{article}
4: %\documentstyle[aaspp4,psfig,11pt]{article}
5:
6: \slugcomment{\it Submitted to ApJ January 12, 2001}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: %\submitted{Draft - \today}
11:
12: \title{Detection of Cosmic Shear with the {\it HST} Survey Strip}
13:
14: \author{Jason Rhodes$^{1,2}$, Alexandre Refregier$^{3}$ \& Edward
15: J. Groth$^{2}$}
16:
17: \affil{1 Code 681, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771; jrhodes@band1.gsfc.nasa.gov}
18: \affil{2 Physics Department, Princeton University,
19: Jadwin Hall, P.O. Box 708, Princeton, NJ 08544;
20: groth@pupgg.princeton.edu}
21: \affil{3 Institute of Astronomy, Madingley
22: Road, Cambridge, CB3 OHA, U.K.; ar@ast.cam.ac.uk}
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: Weak lensing by large-scale structure provides a unique method to
26: directly measure matter fluctuations in the universe, and has recently
27: been detected from the ground. Here, we report the first detection of
28: this `cosmic shear' based on space-based images. The detection was derived from
29: the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Survey Strip (or ``Groth Strip''), a
30: $4' \times 42'$ set of 28 contiguous WFPC2 pointings with $I <
31: 27$. The small size of the HST Point-Spread Function (PSF) affords
32: both a lower statistical noise, and a much weaker sensitivity to
33: systematic effects, a crucial limiting factor of cosmic shear
34: measurements. Our method and treatment of systematic effects were
35: discussed in an earlier paper (Rhodes, Refregier \& Groth 2000). We
36: measure an rms shear of 1.8\% on the WFPC2 chip scale (1.27'),
37: in agreement with the predictions of cluster-normalized CDM
38: models. Using a Maximum Likelihood (ML) analysis, we show that our
39: detection is significant at the 99.5\% confidence level (CL), and
40: measure the normalization of the matter power spectrum to be
41: $\sigma_{8} \Omega_{m}^{0.48} = 0.51^{+0.14}_{-0.17}$, in a
42: $\Lambda$CDM universe. These 68\% CL errors include (Gaussian) cosmic
43: variance, systematic effects and the uncertainty in the redshift
44: distribution of the background galaxies. Our result is consistent with
45: earlier lensing measurements from the ground, and with the
46: normalization derived from cluster abundance. We discuss how our
47: measurement can be improved with the analysis of a large number of
48: independent WFPC2 fields.
49: \end{abstract}
50: \keywords{cosmology: observations - gravitational lensing - cosmology: large-scale structure of universe -
51: cosmology: dark matter}
52:
53: \section{Introduction}
54: \label{introduction}
55: Weak gravitational lensing has now been established as a unique
56: technique to measure the mass distribution in the universe (see
57: Mellier 1999\markcite{mel99}; \markcite{bar00}Bartelmann \& Schneider
58: 2000 for reviews). Recently, several groups detected this effect in
59: the field by measuring the coherent distortions it induces in the
60: shape of background galaxies (\markcite{wit00}Wittman et al. 2000;
61: \markcite{wae00}van Waerbeke et al. 2000; \markcite{bac00a}Bacon,
62: Refregier \& Ellis 2000a (BRE); \markcite{kai00}Kaiser, Wilson \&
63: Luppino 2000; \markcite{mao00} Maoli et al. 2000). This opens wide
64: prospects for the measurement of the distribution of dark matter on
65: cosmological scales and of cosmological parameters.
66:
67: In this paper, we present the first detection of this `cosmic shear'
68: based on space-based images. For this purpose, we use the HST Survey
69: Strip (or ``Groth Strip''), a $4'\times 42'$ survey consisting of 28
70: contiguous WFCP2 fields with a limiting magnitude of $I \approx 27$
71: (Groth et al. 1994). A shear measurement method adapted to HST
72: images and a detailed study of systematic effects for the Strip was
73: presented in an earlier paper \markcite{rho99}Rhodes, Refregier \&
74: Groth (2000, RRG; see also \markcite{rhot99}Rhodes 1999). The main
75: advantage of HST images for weak lensing is the small PSF (0.1''
76: compared to $\sim 1''$ from the ground), which allows a larger surface
77: density of resolved galaxies and makes the shear measurement
78: much less sensitive to the PSF smearing. We apply the results to the
79: Strip and search for a lensing signal using a Maximum Likelihood (ML)
80: approach. We then derive constraints on the amplitude of the mass
81: power spectrum and compare it to other measurements.
82:
83: The paper is organized as follows. In \S\ref{theory} we summarize the
84: main theoretical results which serve as a reference for our
85: measurement. In \S\ref{data} we describe the relevant properties of our
86: data set. Our method for measuring the shear and our treatment of
87: systematic effects are described in \S\ref{procedure}. Our results are
88: presented in \S\ref{results} and discussed and summarized in
89: \S\ref{conclusions}.
90:
91: \section{Theory}
92: \label{theory}
93: We measure the average shear $\overline{\gamma}_{i}$
94: within each WFPC2 chip, which are square cells of side
95: $\alpha=1.27'$. The angular fluctuations of the resulting smoothed
96: shear field are characterized by the shear correlation functions
97: $C_{i}(\theta) \equiv \langle \overline{\gamma}_{i}^{r}(0)
98: \overline{\gamma}_{i}^{r}(\theta) \rangle$, where $i=1,2$ and the
99: brackets refer to an average over pair of cells separated by an angle
100: $\theta=|{\mathbf \theta}|$. The shear components $\gamma_{i}^{r}$ are
101: measured in a rotated coordinate system whose $x$-axis is aligned with
102: the separation vector ${\mathbf \theta}$ between the two points (see e.g.
103: Heavens, Refregier \& Heymans 2000). These correlation functions can be computed for any
104: cosmological model using (see eg. BRE)
105: \begin{equation}
106: \label{eq:ci_th}
107: C_{i}(\theta) = \frac{1}{4\pi} \int_{0}^{\infty}~lC_{l}
108: \left| \widetilde{W}_{l} \right|^{2} \left[ J_{0}(l\theta)
109: \pm J_{4}(l\theta) \right], ~~i=1,2,
110: \end{equation}
111: where $\widetilde{W}_{l}$ is the window function of a square cell. The
112: shear power spectrum $C_{l}$ is defined as in BRE and can be
113: evaluated from the evolution of the non-linear
114: matter power spectrum using the fitting formula from Peacock \& Dodds
115: (1997).
116: %Figure~1 shows correlation functions for $\Lambda$CDM models with
117: %$\Omega_{m}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\Gamma=0.25$, and several
118: %values of $\sigma_{8}$. Unless otherwise specified we consider
119: %this model wioh $\sigma_{8}=1$.
120: In this paper, we will consider a $\Lambda$CDM model with
121: $\Omega_{m}=0.3$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, $\Gamma=0.25$, and consider
122: several values of $\sigma_{8}$, the normalization of the mass
123: fluctuations on 8 $h^{-1}$ Mpc scales.
124:
125:
126: The variance of the cell-averaged shear is $\sigma_{\rm lens}^{2} \equiv
127: \langle |\overline{\gamma}|^{2} \rangle = C_{1}(0)+C_{2}(0)$. For the
128: $\Lambda$CDM model, the rms shear in a cell is
129: \begin{equation}
130: \label{eq:sigma_lens}
131: \sigma_{\rm lens} \simeq 0.0197
132: \left( \frac{\sigma_{8}}{1} \right)^{1.24}
133: \left( \frac{\Omega_{m}}{0.3} \right)^{0.60}
134: \left( \frac{z_{m}}{0.9} \right)^{0.85},
135: \end{equation}
136: where $z_{m}$ is the median redshift of the background galaxies, whose
137: redshift distribution was taken to be of the form of
138: Equation~(\ref{eq:red_dist}) below. The scaling relations in
139: Equation~(\ref{eq:sigma_lens}) provide an
140: excellent approximation in our range of interest, namely, $0.6 \la
141: \sigma_{8} \la 1.4$ and $0.7 \la z_{m} \la 1.2$.
142:
143: %\centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=4truein\epsfbox{cth_s8.ps}}}}
144: %\vskip-0.3cm
145: %\figcaption{\footnotesize Shear correlation functions $C_{1}(\theta)$ and
146: %$C_{2}(\theta)$ for the $\Lambda$CDM model with $\sigma_{8}=0.6,$
147: %0.8, 1.0, 1.2, and 1.4, from bottom to top on the left-hand side,
148: %respectively. Because it turns negative
149: %on large scales, the absolute value of $C_{2}(\theta)$ is plotted.}
150: %\label{fig:cth_s8}
151:
152: \section{Data}
153: \label{data}
154: The Hubble Space Telescope Survey Strip (sometimes referred to as the
155: `Groth Strip', or the `Groth-Westphal Strip') was taken during March
156: and April 1994 using the Guaranteed Time Observations of one of us
157: (EJG) and the WFPC-1 Instrumentation Definition Team (Groth et
158: al. 1994). The Strip was observed in two passbands, V (F606W) and I
159: (F814W). For 27 of the pointings in the Strip, total exposure times
160: were 2800 and 4400 seconds in the V and I bands, respectively. One of
161: the Strip pointings (the Strip Deep Field) had exposure times of
162: 24,400 and 25,200 seconds, arranged in 4 dithers. We used only the
163: I-band images to study weak lensing. The Strip images consist of 4
164: individual exposures with equal exposure times. Here, we chose to use
165: only one of the four dithers for the Deep Field, thus avoiding the
166: complications in the PSF correction that dithering would introduce
167: (see \markcite{rho99} RRG).
168:
169: We used the Faint Object Classification and Analysis System (FOCAS;
170: Jarvis and Tyson, 1981) within IRAF to create a catalog of objects in
171: the Strip. We determine the sky background and its standard deviation
172: using the IRAF task {\tt Imarith}. This was found to be more reliable
173: than the corresponding algorithm within FOCAS. Magnitude zero points
174: are those defined by \markcite{hol95} Holtzman et al. (1995). A FOCAS
175: catalog was created for each filter, and a matched catalog was created
176: for objects that had I and V positions that coincided within a radius
177: of about 5 pixels. There were approximately 10,000 matched objects
178: with I$<26$. Of these objects, approximately 4000 were classified as
179: galaxies, had well defined moments and were sufficiently large to be
180: used in our weak lensing study. We were careful not to double count
181: galaxies that fall in the small overlap region between consecutive
182: fields in the Strip.
183:
184:
185: Koo et al. (1996)\markcite{koo96} have shown that a
186: small subsample (24 galaxies) of Strip objects matches an
187: extrapolation of the CFRS sample redshift distribution.
188: More recent redshift measurements of galaxies in the Strip by
189: the DEEP collaboration (DEEP Collaboration, 1999) agree with the preliminary
190: findings in Koo et al. (1996).\markcite{koo96}
191: Assuming the functional form of the redshift distribution found
192: in the CFRS,
193: \begin{equation}
194: \label{eq:red_dist}
195: \frac{dN}{dz} \propto z^2 e^{-(z/z_{o})^2}
196: \end{equation}
197: and using the median redshift of $z_{m} \simeq z_{o}=0.5$ for objects in the
198: range $17<I<22$ found in that survey \markcite{lil95}(Lilly et
199: al. 1995), we calculate a median redshift for objects in the
200: Strip. The galaxy sample we use to study weak lensing ($I<26$ and
201: size $d>1.5$ pixels) has a median magnitude of $I=23.6$.
202: Extrapolating from the CFRS sample using the Strip number
203: counts, this corresponds to a median redshift of $z_{m}=0.9$ (Rhodes
204: 1999, Groth and Rhodes, 2001)\markcite{rho99}\markcite{gro00}.
205: Photometric redshifts for galaxies in the Hubble Deep Fields
206: (HDF-North and HDF-South) have been measured by Lanzetta et
207: al. (1996). A linear fit to the median redshift versus median
208: magnitude plot yields $z_m=0.87$ for the HDF-South and $z_m=1.00$ for
209: the HDF-North for a median magnitude of $I=23.6$, where we have used the
210: magnitude conversion $I=-0.49+I_{AB}$. This is consistent with what we
211: found above using an extrapolation of the CFRS sample. Therefore,
212: we adopt a median redshift of $z_m=0.9\pm 0.1$ for the lensing
213: analysis in this paper.
214:
215: \section{Procedure and Systematic Effects}
216: \label{procedure}
217: The procedure we use for extracting galaxy ellipticities and shear
218: from the source images is described in detail in RRG\markcite{rho99}
219: (see also \markcite{rhot99}Rhodes 1999). This method is based on one
220: introduced by Kaiser, Squires, and Broadhurst (KSB, 1995), but
221: modified and tested for application to HST images.
222: % While KSB-like
223: %methods have been shown to have a number of shortcomings
224: %(\markcite{kai99}Kaiser 1999; \markcite{kui99}Kuijken 1999), they
225: The KSB method was shown to be adequate for current ground based
226: surveys (\markcite{bac00}Bacon, et al. 2000b; \markcite{erb00}Erben et
227: al. 2000). In RRG, we used numerical simulations and an array of tests
228: to show that our method was sufficiently accurate for WFPC2
229: images.
230: %KSB)\markcite{kai95} and further modified by Luppino and Kaiser
231: %(1997)\markcite{lup97} and Hoekstra et al. (1998)\markcite{hoe98}.
232: %Our method differs from the KSB method in several ways: we use moments
233: %rather than ellipticities for the corrections; We measure higher order
234: %moments of the PSF thus allowing different weight-functions sizes for
235: %stars and galaxies; Finally, we use an analytical deconvolution scheme for
236: %the isotropic part of the PSF.
237:
238: We use our method to correct for two effects: camera distortion and
239: convolution with the anisotropic PSF. Corrections are done using
240: moments measured with a Gaussian weight function whose size in pixels,
241: $\omega$, depends on the size of the object as $\omega=\max(2,
242: \sqrt{A/\pi})$, where $A$ is the area of the object in pixels. The
243: minimum size of two pixels was found to be the optimal weight function
244: size for stellar objects using both actual WFPC2 data and simulations
245: using artificial stellar images created using the program Tiny Tim
246: (Krist and Hook 1997).
247:
248: Camera distortions are corrected using a map derived
249: from stellar astrometric shifts (Holtzman, et al., 1995).
250: PSF corrections are determined from HST observations of two
251: globular clusters (M4 and NGC6572).
252: Finally, we
253: measure the ellipticities ($\epsilon_{i}$) of the galaxies in the Strip and convert them
254: into shear estimates using $\gamma_{i}=G^{-1} \epsilon_{i}$, where
255: $G$ is the shear susceptibility factor given by Eq.~(30) in RRG.
256:
257: RRG have shown that the residual systematic effects can be
258: greatly minimized if (1) the shear is averaged over entire
259: chips, and (2) only ``large'' galaxies with a (convolved)
260: rms radius greater than 1.5 pixels (or about 0.15'') are
261: selected. Since the PSF anisotropy is mainly tangential about the chip
262: centers, condition (1) ensures that the mean PSF ellipticity is small
263: ($\epsilon^{*} \sim 0.02$). Since the shapes of larger galaxies are
264: less affected by the PSF, condition (2) ensures that the impact of the
265: PSF anisotropy on galaxy ellipticities $\epsilon^{g}$ is small.
266: Specifically, RRG show that the ellipticity of the selected galaxies
267: $\epsilon_{g}$ induced by the PSF ellipticity is reduced by a factor
268: $f_{\rm red} \equiv \epsilon^{g}/\epsilon^{*} \simeq 0.13$.
269:
270: As shown in RRG, the residual systematics for this galaxy subsample
271: are dominated by two effects. The first arises from the imperfect
272: accuracy of the ellipticity corrections and shear measurement
273: method. This effect results in an uncertainty in the normalization of
274: the shear of about 4\% and is easily incorporated at the end of our
275: analysis. The second results from the time variability of the PSF. To
276: quantify this effect, we measure the mean ellipticity of the PSF in
277: each chip for 4 stellar fields (M4 observed at 2 different epochs,
278: NGC6572, and a stellar field from the WFPC2 parallel archive). We
279: find that the chip-averaged PSF ellipticity
280: $\overline{\epsilon}^{*}_{ic}$ varies by about 0.01 (rms) in chips
281: $c=2$ and 3 and 0.02 in $c=4$. The variations appear to be stochastic
282: and to be unrelated to the focus position of the telescope. These time
283: variations must be corrected statistically since the small number of
284: stars in the Strip precludes measuring the PSF in each field
285: individually. For this purpose, we measure the covariance
286: $C^{*}_{ic,jc'} \equiv {\rm
287: cov}[\overline{\epsilon^{*}_{ic}},\overline{\epsilon^{*}_{jc'}}]$ of
288: the stellar ellipticities by averaging over all stellar fields, and
289: convert this into the systematics shear correlation matrix $C^{\rm
290: sys}_{ic,jc'} \simeq f_{\rm red}^{-2} G^{-2} C^{*}_{ic,jc'}$ which
291: is subtracted from the galaxy shear correlation functions. The
292: diagonal elements are the shear variance produced by the time
293: variability of the PSF $\sigma_{\rm sys}^{2}=\langle C^{\rm
294: sys}_{1c,1c} + C^{\rm sys}_{2c,2c} \rangle_{c} \simeq 0.0011^{2}$,
295: where the average is over all chips.
296:
297: \section{Results}
298: \label{results}
299: To study the lensing statistics in the Strip, we first compute the
300: mean shear $\overline{\gamma}_{ic}$ in each chip $c$, by averaging
301: over all selected galaxies in the chip. This mean shear is the sum of
302: contributions from lensing, noise and systematic effects,
303: i.e. $\overline{\gamma}_{ic}=\overline{\gamma}^{\rm lens}_{ic}
304: +\overline{\gamma}^{\rm noise}_{ic}+\overline{\gamma}^{\rm sys}_{ic}$.
305: From the distributions of the galaxy shears within each chip, we can
306: measure the covariance matrix $C^{\rm noise}_{ic,jc'} \equiv {\rm
307: cov}[\overline{\gamma}^{\rm noise}_{ic}, \overline{\gamma}^{\rm
308: noise}_{jc'}]$ of the mean shear components. Since the chips do not
309: overlap, $C^{\rm noise}_{ic,jc'}$ vanishes for $c\neq c'$. The
310: diagonal elements $C^{\rm noise}_{ic,ic} \equiv \sigma_{{\rm
311: noise},ic}^{2}$ are the errors in the mean for the mean shear
312: components $\overline{\gamma}_{ic}$. The average noise variance is
313: $\sigma_{\rm noise}^{2} \equiv \langle \sigma_{\rm noise,1c}^{2} +
314: \sigma_{\rm noise,2c}^{2} \rangle_{c} \simeq 0.047^{2}$, where the
315: average is over all chips. The off-diagonal entries in the noise
316: matrix are an order of magnitude below the diagonal ones and thus do
317: not have much impact on the analysis. We nevertheless keep them for
318: completeness.
319:
320: The shear pattern for the Strip is shown in
321: Figure~\ref{fig:Strip_ellip}. Since the expected signal on the chip
322: scale is about $\sigma_{\rm lens} \simeq 0.02$ (see Eq.[2]), the
323: signal-to-noise ratio $\sigma_{\rm lens}/\sigma_{\rm noise}$ for each
324: chip is about 0.4. The lensing signal must therefore be searched for
325: statistically. For this purpose, we first consider the mean shear
326: $\langle \overline{\gamma_{ic}} \rangle_{c}$ averaged over all chips
327: in the Strip. We find $\langle \overline{\gamma_{1}} \rangle = 0.005
328: \pm 0.004$ and $\langle \overline{\gamma_{2}} \rangle = 0.005 \pm
329: 0.004$, where the errors are $1\sigma$ errors in the mean. This is
330: consistent with zero, as expected given the length of the Strip. This
331: nonetheless confirms that we are not subject to systematic effects on
332: large scales.
333:
334: \vspace{0.4cm}
335: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=3.7truein\epsfbox{fig1.ps}}}}
336: \vskip-0.3cm
337: \figcaption{\small The ellipticity of each field and chip in the Survey
338: Strip. The Strip measures about 4 by 42 arcminutes.
339: \label{fig:Strip_ellip}}
340: \vspace{0.4cm}
341:
342: We next consider the variance of the shear on the chip scale. In
343: general, the total observed shear variance $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{2}
344: \equiv \langle |\overline{\gamma}_{ic}|^{2} \rangle$ is the sum of the
345: contribution from lensing, from noise, and from systematic effects,
346: i.e. $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{2} = \sigma_{\rm lens}^{2} + \sigma_{\rm
347: noise}^{2} + \sigma_{\rm sys}^{2}$. An estimator for the lensing
348: variance is thus $\sigma_{\rm lens}^{2} \simeq \sigma_{\rm tot}^{2} -
349: \sigma_{\rm noise}^{2} - \sigma_{\rm sys}^{2}$ (for more details, see
350: BRE). Using our estimate of $\sigma_{\rm sys}$ (see
351: \S\ref{procedure}), we find $\sigma_{\rm lens} \simeq 0.018$, which is
352: close to the expected value of 0.0197 in the $\Lambda$CDM model (see
353: Eq.~[\ref{eq:sigma_lens}]). Estimating errors on the shear variance is
354: complicated since the chips are contiguous and thus not
355: independent. Instead of attempting to do this, we use a maximum
356: likelihood approach to extract the lensing signal on all scales
357: simultaneously.
358:
359: To do so, we assume that the shear field obeys Gaussian
360: statistics. Since we are averaging over a large number of galaxies
361: (about 50) in each field, the central value theorem ensures that this
362: assumption is valid for the noise contribution. It is difficult to
363: establish whether the systematics are Gaussian; however, since they
364: have a much smaller amplitude than the noise, it is sufficient to
365: assume that they are so. The lensing shear field is known not to be
366: Gaussian, especially on scales smaller than 10' which are dominated by
367: the non-linear evolution of structures (\markcite{jai97}Jain \& Seljak
368: 1997). However, as we have shown above, the noise dominates over the
369: lensing signal in each individual chip. Therefore our Gaussian approximation should not
370: underestimate our error bars by a large amount.
371: %While our Gaussian
372: %approximation underestimate our errors bars somewhat, it is thus
373: %sufficient for our purpose.
374:
375: With this approximation, the probability of measuring the mean shears
376: $\overline{\gamma}_{ic}$ given a cosmological model $M$ is
377: \begin{equation}
378: P(\overline{\gamma}_{ic}|M) \simeq \frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2} g^{T} C^{-1}
379: g}}{(2\pi)^{N}|C|^{\frac{1}{2}}}
380: \end{equation}
381: where $N=84$ is the number of chips, and
382: $g=(\overline{\gamma}_{11},\overline{\gamma}_{21},\cdot \cdot \cdot ,
383: \overline{\gamma}_{1N}, \overline{\gamma}_{2N})$ is the data vector
384: composed of the $2N$ measured shears. The total correlation matrix
385: $C$ is given by $C=C^{\rm lens}+C^{\rm noise}+C^{\rm sys}$. The
386: systematics correlation matrix $C^{\rm sys}$ is computed as explained
387: in \S\ref{procedure}, assuming that each field is independent as
388: indicated by the stochastic nature of the PSF variations. The lensing
389: correlation matrix $C^{\rm lens}$ depends on the cosmological model
390: and can be computed by unrotating the rotated correlation functions
391: $C_{1}(\theta)$ and $C_{2}(\theta)$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:ci_th}). Following
392: Bayes' postulate, the likelihood $L$ of the model $M$ given the data
393: is then $L \propto P(\overline{\gamma}_{ic}|M)$, so that its logarithm
394: is given by
395: \begin{equation}
396: \label{eq:lnl}
397: - 2 \ln L \simeq g^{T} C^{-1} g + \ln |C| + {\rm
398: constant}.
399: \end{equation}
400:
401:
402: First, we test the null hypothesis, namely the absence of lensing
403: corresponding to $C^{\rm lens}=0$. In this case, $C=C^{\rm
404: noise}+C^{\rm sys}$ is a constant, and the log likelihood reduces to
405: $- 2 \ln L = \chi^{2} + {\rm constant}$, where $\chi^{2} \equiv g^{T}
406: C^{-1} g$. For the Strip, we find a reduced $\chi^{2}$ of 1.31 with
407: $2\times 84$ degrees of freedom. The null hypothesis is thus ruled out
408: at the 99.5\% confidence level, thus establishing our detection of the
409: lensing signal. Note that this null test does does not rely on the
410: assumption that the lensing shear field is Gaussian, because we have set it to
411: zero in this case.
412:
413: Now that we have established the presence of a lensing signal, we can
414: compute the constraints our data impose on cosmological parameters.
415: To do so, we compute the Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimator for
416: $\sigma_{8} (\Omega_{m}/0.3)^{0.48}$. This was done by maximizing $\ln
417: L$ (Eq.~[\ref{eq:lnl}]), which was computed with $C_{\rm lens}$
418: matrices corresponding to different values of this parameter. To
419: compute the error in $\sigma_{8}$ we performed 1000 random
420: realizations of the Strip with shears drawn from a multivariate
421: Gaussian distribution with a covariance matrix given by $C=C^{\rm
422: lens}+C^{\rm noise}+C^{\rm sys}$ (with $C^{\rm lens}$ at the MLE value
423: of $\sigma_{8}(\Omega_{m}/0.3)^{0.48}$ of the Strip).
424:
425: \centerline{{\vbox{\epsfxsize=3.2truein\epsfbox{sigma8.ps}}}}
426: \figcaption{\small Distribution of the ML normalization
427: of the power spectrum $\sigma_{8} \Omega_{m}^{0.48}$ derived from 1000 random
428: realizations of the Strip. The normalization corresponding to the
429: real Strip is shown as the vertical dashed line. The 68\% confidence
430: level is shown as the shaded region. The full 68\% confidence
431: interval which includes (Gaussian) cosmic variance, the uncertainty
432: in the median redshifts of the background galaxies and that arising
433: from systematic effects is shown as a horizontal bar. It can be
434: compared to the corresponding limits derived from the William Herschel
435: Telescope (WHT) cosmic shear survey of BRE,
436: and to that from cluster abundance (Pierpaoli et al. 2000), shown as
437: marked horizontal bars.
438: \label{fig:sigma8}}
439: \vspace{3mm}
440:
441: The resulting
442: distribution of the ML values is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:sigma8}.
443: We thus obtain $\sigma_{8} (\Omega_{m}/0.3)^{0.48} =
444: 0.90^{+0.22}_{-0.24}$ where the error bars correspond to the 68\%
445: confidence interval. After propagating errors induced by the uncertain
446: median redshift $z_{m}$ (see \S\ref{data}) of the galaxies and by the
447: shear measurement method, our final 68\% confidence range becomes
448: $\sigma_{8} (\Omega_{m}/0.3)^{0.48} = 0.90^{+0.25}_{-0.30}$ and is
449: shown as a horizontal bar in Figure~\ref{fig:sigma8}. This value is
450: consistent with the William Herschel Telescope (WHT) cosmic shear
451: survey of BRE, who found $\sigma_{8} (\Omega_{m}/0.3)^{0.48} = 1.5 \pm
452: 0.5$, as shown by the associated horizontal bar on the Figure. Our
453: results are also consistent with the amplitude of the cosmic shear
454: signals found by other groups (Wittman et al. 2000; van Waerbeke et
455: al. 2000; Kaiser et al. 2000; Maoli et al. 2000). However, since these
456: groups do not include cosmic variance and redshift uncertainty in
457: their error bar estimates, their results can not be directly compared
458: with ours. The normalization from cluster abundance $\sigma_{8}
459: (\Omega_{m}/0.3)^{0.60} = 1.019^{+0.070}_{-0.076}$ (Pierpaoli et
460: al. 2000) is consistent with ours and is also shown on the figure
461: (after ignoring the small difference in the exponents for
462: $\Omega_{m}$).
463:
464: % Figure 2 (sigma8) was here
465:
466:
467:
468: \section{Conclusions}
469: \label{conclusions}
470: We have detected, for the first time, cosmic shear using space-based
471: images. Our detection in the HST Survey Strip is significant at the
472: 99.5\% confidence level. Using a ML method to search for a lensing
473: signal on all scales simultaneously, we derived a normalization of the
474: matter power spectrum of $\sigma_{8} \Omega_{m}^{0.48} =
475: 0.51^{+0.14}_{-0.17}$. This 68\% confidence interval includes
476: statistical noise, (Gaussian) cosmic variance, uncertainty in the
477: redshift distribution of the galaxies and in our shear measurement
478: method. This is consistent with ground-based cosmic shear surveys and
479: with the normalization derived from cluster abundance.
480:
481: Our result demonstrates the power of space-based images to measure
482: cosmic shear. The small PSF in HST images affords both a larger
483: surface density of background galaxies and a much reduced impact of
484: the systematics induced by the PSF anisotropy. The latter advantage
485: will be even more important for future, wider surveys whose sensitivity
486: will be comparable to the amplitude of the systematics.
487:
488: Our current results are chiefly limited by the relatively small area
489: of the Strip. The signal-to-noise ratio for the detection of
490: cosmic shear in $N_{f}$ independent WFPC2 fields, in which we cannot search for lensing on all scales
491: simultaneously as we have done here, is
492: approximately S/N $\simeq (\sigma_{\rm lens}/\sigma_{\rm noise})^{2}
493: (3N_{f})^{\frac{1}{2}} \simeq 6.8 (N_{f}/500)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ (see BRE).
494: %approximately S/N $\simeq (\sigma_{\rm lens}/\sigma_{\rm noise})
495: %(3N_{f})^{\frac{1}{2}} \simeq 0.7 (N_{f})^{\frac{1}{2}}$ (see BRE).
496: Our detection can thus be significantly improved in the future by an
497: analysis of existing disjoint WFPC2 fields.
498:
499: \acknowledgments We thank David Bacon for useful discussions. JR was supported by NASA Grant NAG5-6279 and
500: a National Research Council-GSFC Research Associateship. AR was supported by a EEC fellowship from the TMR
501: Gravitational Lensing Network and by a Wolfson College Research
502: Fellowship. EJG was supported by NASA Grant NAG5-6279. We thank the WFPC1 IDT for their cooperation.
503:
504: \begin{thebibliography}{}
505: \bibitem{bac00a} Bacon, D.J., Refregier, A., \& Ellis, R.S., 2000a (BRE),
506: \mnras, 318, 625
507: \bibitem{bac00b} Bacon, D.J., Refregier, A., Clowe, D., \& Ellis, R.S., 2000b,
508: submitted to \mnras, preprint astro-ph/0007023
509: \bibitem{bar00} Bartelmann, M., \& Schneider, P., 2000, preprint
510: astro-ph/9912508
511: \bibitem{dee99} DEEP Collaboration, 1999, Private Communication
512: \bibitem{erb99} Erben, T., van Waerbeke, L., Bertin, E., Mellier, Y.,
513: \& Schneider, P., submitted to A\&A, preprint astro-ph/0007021
514: \bibitem{gro98} Groth, E. J., et al., 1994, BAAS, 26, 1403
515: \bibitem{gro00} Groth, E. J., and Rhodes, J. 2001, In Preparation
516: \bibitem{hea00} Heavens, A. Refregier, A., \& Heymans, C., 2000,
517: \mnras,319, 649
518: %\bibitem{hoe98} Hoekstra, H., Franx, M., Kuijken, K., \& Squires, G.,
519: % 1998, \apj, 504, 636
520: \bibitem{hol95} Holtzman, J.A., et al. 1995, \pasp, 107, 156
521: \bibitem{jai97} Jain, B. \& Seljak, U. 1997 \apj,484, 560
522: \bibitem{jar81} Jarvis, J.F., \& Tyson, J.A., 1981, \aj, 86, 476
523: \bibitem{kai95} Kaiser, N., \& Squires, G., \& Broadhurst, T. 1995,
524: \apj, 449, 460
525: \bibitem{kai00} Kaiser, N., Wilson, G., \& Luppino, G.A., 2000,
526: submitted to \apj Letters, preprint astro-ph/0003338
527: %\bibitem{kai99} Kaiser, N., 1999, submitted to \apj, preprint astro-ph/9904003
528: \bibitem{koo96} Koo, D., et al. 1996, \apj, 469, 535
529: \bibitem{kri97} Krist, J., \& Hook, R., 1997, The Tiny Tim User's Guide
530: (Baltimore: STScI)
531: %\bibitem{kui99} Kuijken, K., 1999, submitted to A\&A, preprint
532: % astro-ph/9904418
533: \bibitem{lan96} Lanzetta, K., Yahil, A., \& Fernandez-Soto, A.,1996, Nature, 381, 759 and
534: data at http://www.ess.sunysb.edu/astro/
535: \bibitem{lil95} Lilly, S., et al. 1995, \apj 455, 108
536: %\bibitem{lup97} Luppino, G.A., \& Kaiser, N. 1997, \apj, 475,
537: % 20
538: \bibitem{mao00} Maoli, R., van Waerbeke, L., Mellier, Y., Schneider,
539: P., Jain, B., Bernardeau, F., Erben, T., \& Fort, B., 2000, submitted
540: to \aap, preprint astro-ph/0011251
541: \bibitem{mel99} Mellier, Y., 1999, ARA\&A, 37, 127
542: \bibitem{Pea97} Peacock, J., \& Dodds, S.J., 1997, \mnras, 280, L19
543: \bibitem{pie00} Pierpaoli, E., Scott, D., \& White, M., 2000,
544: submitted to MNRAS, preprint astro-ph/0010039
545: %\bibitem{rha98} Rhodes, J., Groth, E., \& WFPC1 IDT 1997,
546: % BAAS, 29, 1207
547: \bibitem{rhot99} Rhodes, J., 1999, PhD Thesis,
548: Department of Physics, Princeton University
549: \bibitem{rho99} Rhodes, J., Refregier, A., \& Groth, E.J., 2000, (RRG), \apj, 536, 79
550: \bibitem{wae00} van Waerbeke, L., et al. 2000, \aap, 358, 30
551: \bibitem{wit00} Wittman, D.M., Tyson, J.A., Kirkman, D., Dell'Antonio,
552: Ian, \& Bernstein, G., 2000, Nature, 405, 143
553: \end{thebibliography}
554: \newpage
555:
556: \end{document}
557:
558:
559: