1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: 

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: 

5: \shorttitle{Corrective lenses for high-$z$ SNe}

6: \shortauthors{Dalal, Holz, Chen, \& Frieman}

7: 

8: \newcommand{\figwidth}{0.9\textwidth}

9: 

10: \begin{document}

11: \title{Corrective lenses for high redshift supernovae}

12: \author{Neal Dalal}

13: \affil{Physics Department, University of California at San Diego,

14: La Jolla, CA 92093}

15: \author{Daniel E. Holz, Xuelei Chen}

16: \affil{Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of

17: California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106}

18: \and

19: \author{Joshua A. Frieman}

20: \affil{NASA/Fermilab Astrophysics Center, Fermilab, PO Box

21: 500, Batavia, IL 60510 and

22: Department of Astronomy \& Astrophysics, and Center for

23: Cosmological Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637}

24: 

25: \begin{abstract}

26: Weak lensing of high-redshift Type Ia supernovae induces an external

27: dispersion in their observed standard candle brightnesses, comparable

28: in magnitude to the intrinsic dispersion for

29: redshifts $z>1$.  The same matter fluctuations responsible for the

30: magnification of distant supernovae also generate shear in the images

31: of background galaxies.  We investigate the possibility of using

32: lensing shear maps constructed from galaxies surrounding the

33: supernovae as a means of correcting the lensing-induced magnification

34: dispersion.  We find that a considerable fraction of the lensing

35: dispersion derives from sub-arcminute scales, which are

36: not probed by shear maps smoothed on arcminute scales.  We thus find

37: that weak lensing shear maps will be of only limited value in reducing

38: the weak lensing magnification fluctuations of supernovae.

39: \end{abstract}

40: 

41: \section{Introduction}

42: 

43: High redshift Type Ia supernovae provide an excellent means

44: of studying the expansion history of the

45: universe~\citep{hzss,scp}. It is estimated that the

46: intrinsic dispersion in supernova luminosities can be

47: calibrated to $\approx0.15$ mag, and perhaps in the future

48: to $0.1$ mag~\citep{snap}, making

49: them excellent standard candles.  For supernovae at

50: redshifts $z<1$, this intrinsic dispersion sets the limiting

51: accuracy with which supernovae may be used to measure

52: distances.  For higher redshifts ($z\ga1$), however,

53: gravitational lensing by random fluctuations in the

54: intervening matter distribution induces a dispersion in

55: supernova brightness comparable to the

56: intrinsic dispersion

57: \citep{frieman97,hw98,holz98,wang}, degrading their value as

58: standard candles. 

59: These magnification fluctuations have zero mean, and so may be averaged

60: away with sufficient numbers of supernovae \citep{wangbin}.  However, the

61: additional dispersion means that more supernovae are required than

62: for low redshift samples to achieve a given signal to noise.

63: 

64: It would be of great utility to determine the

65: gravitational lensing magnification of each

66: individual supernova. This would allow a correction of the

67: observed brightnesses of the supernovae, and therefore

68: improve their use as standard candles. 

69: Such a correction would be equivalent to obtaining a

70: larger sample of supernovae, for free. In addition,

71: measuring the gravitational lensing distribution at high

72: redshift can be an important probe of the dark

73: matter~\citep{ms99,seljakholz,ben99,holz01}.  One means of

74: achieving this would be an inspection of the foreground

75: galaxies for each supernova.  For example, SN1997ff at

76: $z=1.7$ has several foreground galaxies in its vicinity,

77: leading to a magnification possibly as large as 0.4

78: magnitudes~\citep{ibata,sn1997ff,moertsell}.  If the

79: magnification factor could be accurately estimated from the

80: foreground galaxy images, then the supernova brightness

81: could be corrected to its unlensed value.  The correction

82: factor depends strongly on uncertain properties of the

83: galaxies' mass distributions (illustrated by the

84: controversy over the extent of lensing of SN1997ff),

85: and would miss possibly important contributions

86: from dark halos.  Furthermore, since such corrections would

87: primarily shift highly magnified SNe to lower brightnesses,

88: while leaving demagnified SNe unaffected, it would bias the

89: resultant Hubble diagram. It is apparent that direct

90: identification of individual lenses does not robustly determine

91: the lensing magnification.  It is also

92: possible to correlate, in a statistical manner, the

93: foreground galaxy number density close to the lines of sight to

94: supernovae with the lensing effects on these

95: supernovae~\citep{ben01}, but these statistical results do

96: not help us ``correct'' any given individual supernova.

97: 

98: An alternative method for correcting lensing magnification

99: is to utilize weak lensing maps constructed from shear

100: measurements of background galaxies. The same matter

101: fluctuations responsible for the magnification of supernovae

102: also lead to shearing of galaxy images.  High redshift SNe

103: are discovered by repeated exposures of wide fields, which

104: when co-added provide extremely deep images of the galaxies

105: surrounding the supernovae.  Such deep, wide field images

106: are well-suited for measurement of weak lensing shear.  It

107: is thus natural to hope that mass reconstruction from shear

108: measurements of the surrounding fields might allow for the

109: correction of weak lensing magnification, restoring the

110: supernovae to their intrinsic brightnesses.  A perfect

111: measurement of the shear field at the redshift of a given

112: supernova would allow for a perfect reconstruction of the

113: projected mass surface density (modulo the mass-sheet

114: degeneracy, which should be unimportant for large enough

115: fields). From this mass surface density it is possible to

116: calculate the lensing magnification, and therefore perfectly

117: account for (and correct) the lensing effects on the

118: observed brightness. Perfect shear maps are unavailable,

119: however, and therefore our ability to infer the

120: magnification is compromised.  In this paper, we investigate

121: how well weak lensing reconstruction can correct the

122: brightnesses of distant supernovae.

123: 

124: The basic scheme is as follows. A supernova occurs in a

125: given field, and its peak apparent magnitude is observed

126: and calibrated, using some variant of the \citet{phillips}

127: relation. Then the (co-added) field

128: containing the supernova is used to estimate the local

129: shear at the supernova's location by averaging over a smoothing

130: angle $\theta$. The shear map is then

131: converted to an effective convergence map using some reconstruction

132: algorithm such as that of \citet{ks}, and the derived convergence is

133: used to correct the supernova's standard candle brightness. In the

134: following section we estimate the variance in convergence

135: for point sources given knowledge of the smoothed shear map,

136: $\langle\kappa^2\rangle_\gamma$,

137: which is a direct measure of the improvement such an

138: approach can offer. We find that useful corrections require

139: very large background source galaxy densities, and that this

140: method is therefore of only marginal utility.

141: 

142: 

143: \section{Computing the shear-convergence correlation coefficient}

144: 

145: Let us denote by $\kappa$ the effective convergence,

146: relative to the homogeneous filled-beam value, for a point

147: source.  In Figure~\ref{angpow} we plot the angular power

148: spectrum of the convergence,

149: $\Delta_\kappa^2(\ell)=\ell^2P_\kappa(\ell)/2\pi$~\citep{whitehu},

150: for sources at $z_s=2$.  To calculate this, we employ the

151: fitting functions of~\citet{eh99} for the linear matter

152: power spectrum, and follow the prescription of~\cite{pd} for

153: the non-linear correction.  We use a COBE normalized, scale

154: invariant ($n=1$) linear power spectrum in a flat

155: $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with total matter density

156: $\Omega_m=0.35$, Hubble constant $h=0.65$

157: ($H_0=100\,h\,\mbox{km}/\mbox{s/Mpc}$), and baryon density

158: $\Omega_b h^2=0.02$.  We also assume that the dark matter is

159: microscopic (e.g., elementary particles), rather than

160: macroscopic (e.g., black holes or MACHOs). The latter case

161: leads to enhanced power on microarcsecond scales, which

162: decorrelates point source magnification from galaxy shear.

163: 

164: The convergence angular power spectrum peaks on arcminute scales

165: ($\ell\sim10^4$), with significant power extending for

166: multiple decades in $\ell$.  All of this power contributes

167: to the magnification of (almost) point sources like

168: supernovae.  When measuring shear, however, galaxy

169: correlations must be averaged over large angular patches to

170: suppress Poisson noise, and this averaging

171: washes out small scale power.  For example, if we smooth

172: over arcminute-sized patches, we see that a considerable

173: fraction of the fluctuations affecting the brightness of

174: point sources are not probed by the smoothed galaxy shear

175: map.  This hints that shear maps will be of only limited

176: value.

177: 

178: The convergence power spectrum gives the variance in

179: effective convergence \citep{whitehu}

180: \begin{eqnarray}

181: \left\langle {\kappa^2} \right\rangle&=&{1\over2\pi}\int_0^\infty

182: \mathrm{d}\ell\,\ell P_\kappa(\ell)\\

183: &=&\frac{9\pi}{4}\left({\Omega_mH_0^2\over c^2}\right)^2

184: \int_0^{R_S} \mathrm{d}R\,\left({R(1-R/R_S)\over a(R)}\right)^2

185: \int_0^\infty {\mathrm{d}k\over k^{2}}\,\Delta_{\rm

186: mass}^2(k,a(R)),

187: \label{kappa2}

188: \end{eqnarray}

189: where $R$ is

190: the comoving radial distance

191: ($R(z)=\int_0^z\mathrm{d}z'\,c/H(z')$), $a=1/(1+z)$, and $\Delta_{\rm

192: mass}^2(k,a)=k^3\,P_{\rm mass}(k)/(2\pi^2)$ is the matter power

193: spectrum (per logarithmic interval physical

194: wavenumber). Here, and in what follows, we restrict

195: ourselves to cosmologies with flat spatial sections ($\Omega_{\rm tot}=1$).

196: For the power spectrum shown in Figure~\ref{angpow} we find $\left\langle

197: {\kappa^2} \right\rangle=0.0036$ for sources at $z_s=2$.

198: In the weak lensing limit, the magnification of a given

199: source, $\mu$, is related to the convergence by

200: $\mu\simeq1+2\kappa$. This variance in $\kappa$ thus corresponds

201: to a $1\sigma$ spread in standard candle flux of $12\%$.

202: 

203: \begin{figure}

204: \centerline{

205: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=\figwidth]{f1.ps}

206: }

207: %\plotone{f1.ps}

208: \caption{Weak lensing convergence angular power spectrum at

209: $z_s=2$, for $\Omega_m=1-\Omega_\Lambda=0.35$, $h=0.65$, $\Omega_b

210: h^2=0.02$, and $n=1$.  We use the

211: fitting functions of {\protect\citet{eh99}} for the linear power 

212: spectrum (COBE normalized), and the fitting functions of {\protect\citet{pd}}

213: for the nonlinear power spectrum.

214: Note that the convergence power spectrum peaks at angular

215: scales of about an arcminute. Smoothing on these scales (or

216: smaller) will therefore average away much of the convergence power.

217: }

218: \label{angpow}

219: \end{figure}

220: 

221: We define $\kappa_\theta$ as the effective convergence

222: averaged over a circular patch on the sky of radius

223: $\theta$, which is to be determined by shear

224: measurements (e.g., using the algorithm of \citet{ks}). 

225: %It can be shown that the variance of the smoothed shear can be

226: %used as a proxy for the variance of the smoothed

227: %convergence~\citep{bs01}.  

228: If $\langle\kappa^2\rangle$ is

229: the variance in $\kappa$, then by measuring galaxy shear we

230: can reduce the variance in the corrected convergence of the supernova

231: image to

232: $\langle\kappa^2\rangle_\gamma=(1-r^2)\langle\kappa^2\rangle$,

233: where the correlation coefficient (in the absence of shot

234: noise) is given by $r^2=\langle\kappa\kappa_\theta\rangle^2/

235: (\langle\kappa^2\rangle\langle\kappa_\theta^2\rangle)$.

236: %~\citep{bower}

237: This expression strictly holds for a Gaussian convergence

238: probability distribution function; although the weak lensing

239: convergence pdf deviates somewhat from Gaussianity~(see,

240: e.g., \citet{whm02}), we nonetheless expect the above 

241: expression for $r^2$ to be a reasonable ballpark estimate of the

242: correction factor.

243: It may be interesting to explore

244: whether non-Gaussian pdf's can lead to superior correction.

245: %This implicitly assumes that the convergence probability distribution

246: %function is sufficiently Gaussian; it may be interesting to explore

247: %whether non-Gaussian pdf's can lead to superior correction~(see, e.g., \citet{whm02}).

248: %This latter expression assumes that the peaks of the weak

249: %lensing convergence distributions are Gaussian, which is

250: %expected to be a good approximation (see, e.g., \citet{whm02}).

251: Assuming we can write the shot noise term contribution to

252: $\kappa_\theta^2$ as

253: $C_{P}(\theta)=\gamma_{\rm rms}^2/N$, with $\gamma_{\rm

254: rms}$ the intrinsic galaxy ellipticity and $N={\bar

255: n}\pi\theta^2$ the number of source galaxies inside the smoothing

256: area ($\bar n$ is the background galaxy number density), we have

257: \begin{equation}

258: r^2=\frac{\langle\kappa\kappa_\theta\rangle^2}

259: {\langle\kappa^2\rangle(\langle\kappa_\theta^2\rangle+C_P(\theta))}.

260: \label{eqncorr}

261: \end{equation}

262: For $N\to\infty$ and $\theta\to0$, we have $r^2\to 1$. This is as

263: expected: with a perfect lensing shear map, we can fully correct

264: for lensing magnification.

265: 

266: The correlation functions can all be computed using the nonlinear

267: matter power spectrum \citep{jainseljak,whitehu,waer},

268: \begin{equation}

269: \langle\kappa_\theta^2\rangle=\frac{9\pi}{4}\left({\Omega_mH_0^2\over c^2}\right)^2

270: \int_0^{R_S} \mathrm{d}R\,\left(\frac{g(R)}{a(R)}\right)^2

271: \int_0^\infty {\mathrm{d}k\over k^{2}}\,\Delta_{\rm

272: mass}^2\left({k,a(R)}\right) W_2^2(kR\theta),

273: \label{kappatheta2}

274: \end{equation}

275: and

276: \begin{equation}

277: \langle\kappa\kappa_\theta\rangle=\frac{9\pi}{4}\left({\Omega_mH_0^2\over c^2}\right)^2

278: \int_0^{R_S} \mathrm{d}R\,

279: {R(1-R/R_S)g(R)\over a(R)^2}

280: \int_0^\infty {\mathrm{d}k\over k^{2}}\,\Delta_{\rm

281: mass}^2\left({k,a(R)}\right) W_2(kR\theta),

282: \label{kappakappatheta}

283: \end{equation}

284: where $W_2(x)=2J_1(x)/x$, $J_1(x)$ is the

285: Bessel function of the first kind, and

286: \begin{equation}

287: g(R)=R\int_R^{R_{\rm hor}}\mathrm{d}R_s\,\frac{R_s-R}{R_s}w(R_s),

288: \end{equation}

289: with $w(R_s)$ describing the radial distribution of the

290: sources and $R_{\rm hor}$ the comoving distance to the

291: horizon.  If all of the source galaxies being

292: utilized for the shear measurements are at the same

293: redshift as that of the supernova ($z_s=z_{\rm SN}$), we have

294: $w(R_s)=\delta(R_s-R_{\rm SN})$. For a given background

295: galaxy density, this case represents the optimal

296: shear correction to the convergence. For the more realistic case

297: of source galaxies distributed in redshift, we adopt a

298: population distribution described by $w(R_s)\propto

299: R_s^\alpha\exp(-(R_s/R_\star)^\beta)$~\citep{kaiser92,hu_tomo}, 

300: and set $\alpha=1$, $\beta=4$, and

301: $R_\star=c/H_0$ corresponding to a mean redshift of

302: $\bar z\sim1$. Although this galaxy distribution is

303: simplistic (e.g., modulo an overall scaling

304: factor it is independent of survey depth and filters), it is

305: sufficient to indicate the decorrelation arising from the spread in

306: galaxy redshifts.  

307: These two cases circumscribe the range of $r^2$ when tomographic

308: information, such as photometric redshifts, are employed.

309: 

310: 

311: For each value of the background galaxy density there is a

312: tradeoff between the shot noise term, which decreases for

313: large smoothing angles, and the cross-correlation term, which is

314: weaker for large smoothing angles. The smoothing angle,

315: $\theta$, which maximizes the cross-correlation coefficient,

316: $r^2$, is shown as a function of $\bar n$ in

317: Figure~\ref{theta}, for an intrinsic galaxy ellipticity of

318: $\gamma_{\rm rms}=0.4$~\citep{kaiser92}. The corresponding

319: values of the cross-correlation coefficient are shown in

320: Figure~\ref{rsq}. The dashed curves represent the optimal

321: correction, where all the source galaxies are at the same

322: redshift as that of the supernova. The solid curves are for

323: the galaxy redshift distribution described above.

324: 

325: \begin{figure}

326: %\includegraphics[angle=270,width=\figwidth]{theta.ps}

327: \plotone{f2.ps}

328: \caption{The optimum smoothing angle, $\theta$ in arcminutes, as

329: a function of the background galaxy density, chosen so as to

330: maximize the correlation coefficient, $r^2$. The supernova

331: is at redshift $z_{\rm SN}=2$, in a cosmology with

332: $\Omega_m=1-\Omega_\Lambda=0.35$ and $h=0.65$, and

333: with an intrinsic galaxy shear of $\gamma_{\rm rms}=0.4$.

334: The solid line employs the source galaxy distribution

335: described in the text, while the dashed line represents the

336: case where all of the source galaxies used to measure shear

337: are at the same redshift as that of the supernova.}

338: \label{theta}

339: \end{figure}

340: 

341: 

342: \begin{figure}

343: %\includegraphics[angle=270,width=\figwidth]{rsq.ps}

344: \plotone{f3.ps}

345: \caption{The correlation coefficient, $r^2$, given by

346: equation~({\protect\ref{eqncorr}}), as a function of the

347: background galaxy density. For each value of galaxy density

348: the optimal smoothing angle is calculated (shown in

349: Figure~{\protect \ref{theta}}), and the subsequent shear

350: correction to magnification is plotted.  As in the previous

351: Figure, the supernova is at redshift $z_{\rm SN}=2$, in a cosmology

352: with $\Omega_m=1-\Omega_\Lambda=0.35$ and $h=0.65$,

353: and with an intrinsic galaxy ellipticity of $\gamma_{\rm

354: rms}=0.4$.

355: The solid line employs the source galaxy distribution

356: described in the text, while the dashed line represents the

357: case where all of the source galaxies used to measure shear

358: are at the same redshift as that of the supernova.}

359: \label{rsq}

360: \end{figure}

361: 

362: \section{Conclusions}

363: 

364: From Figure~\ref{rsq} it is apparent that shear maps will be

365: of limited value in reducing the lensing dispersion of

366: supernova brightnesses, unless the number density of

367: background galaxies is great enough to permit sufficiently

368: small smoothing angles.  For example, if the number density

369: of background galaxies is as high as ${\bar n}=10^6/{\rm

370: deg}^2$, then at best we find a value for the cross-correlation

371: coefficient of $r^2\simeq0.35$.  If the uncorrected convergence

372: variance is

373: $\langle\kappa^2\rangle=0.0036$, then we find the variance

374: for the corrected supernovae convergence to be

375: $\langle\kappa^2\rangle_\gamma=(1-r^2)\langle\kappa^2\rangle=0.0023$. This

376: yields an rms magnification of $0.1$, which is a 20\%

377: improvement over the uncorrected value of $0.12$.  This

378: represents the optimal case discussed above, where all of

379: the source galaxies are at the same redshift as that of the

380: supernova. Including the expected spread in galaxy redshifts

381: provides a more reasonable estimate of $r^2\simeq 0.2$,

382: giving a reduction in the rms magnification of the supernova

383: of around $10\%$.  It is to be emphasized that this is an

384: improvement (reduction) in the width of the observed

385: supernova magnification distribution, and not a 

386: change in the mean (which remains at $\mu=1$).  

387: In addition, the {\em intrinsic}\/

388: dispersion in supernova luminosities causes a further

389: contribution to the observed rms standard candle

390: magnification luminosity.

391: 

392: Tomographic information can do little to ameliorate the

393: situation.  The simplest approach would be to confine the

394: shear analysis to source galaxies in a slab in redshift

395: space centered on the supernova. By doing this one moves up

396: and to the left of the solid curve in Figure~\ref{rsq},

397: trading off increased shot noise for more effective lensing

398: information. It is apparent from the Figure that there is a

399: net improvement if $\ga10\%$ of the galaxies are at similar

400: redshifts to that of the supernova.  More

401: inspired schemes might attempt to employ the information

402: contained in galaxies at all redshifts; regardless, for a

403: given effective galaxy density the theoretical limit is

404: still bounded by the dashed curve in Figure~\ref{rsq}. Our

405: model for the distribution of galaxy source images in

406: redshift space is particularly simple---more realistic

407: models (e.g. with dependence on survey depth) may also push

408: one closer to the dashed curve.

409: 

410: The estimate presented here is optimistic in that we assume

411: that the smoothed convergence field may be directly

412: measured.  In reality, the shear field is measured, and then

413: converted to a convergence map~\citep{ks}. Even in this

414: optimistic approximation, at best meager returns are

415: expected from the construction of shear maps of

416: surrounding galaxies.

417: An additional caveat is that we have assumed the noise is

418: dominated by Poisson noise in the number of source

419: galaxies. Additional systematic errors, such as imprecise

420: measurement of the point spread function, only worsen the

421: decorrelation.

422: Note that our conclusions are

423: sensitive to the shape of the convergence angular power

424: spectrum. If in reality the power spectrum is unlike that of

425: Figure~\ref{angpow}, and instead has far less small-scale

426: power, then galaxy shear may turn out to be a much more

427: powerful tool for correcting weak lensing of supernovae.  At

428: present, it appears that there is significant small-scale

429: power \citep{dk1,dk2}, consistent with the values assumed

430: here.  Future wide field surveys like the

431: LSST\footnote{http://www.lssto.org} or

432: SNAP\footnote{http://snap.lbl.gov} will directly measure the

433: convergence angular power on some of the relevant scales, so

434: it will be possible to check whether the assumptions made

435: here are valid.  Assuming, however, that the power spectrum

436: does not significantly depart from that which we have used,

437: the prospects for using galaxy shear to correct supernova

438: brightnesses appear bleak. Given the danger of introducing

439: unknown biases in the resulting distance-magnitude relation,

440: it is unclear whether future supernova surveys should

441: attempt the use of lensing shear maps to correct for

442: magnification of supernova brightnesses.

443: 

444: \acknowledgments{We thank Eric Linder, Ue-Li Pen, Saul

445: Perlmutter, Ira Wasserman, and Pengjie Zhang for helpful

446: discussions.  DEH and XC are supported by the NSF under

447: grant PHY99-07949 to the ITP. ND is supported by the DOE

448: under grant DOE-FG03-97-ER 40546, and by the ARCS

449: Foundation. JF acknowledges support from the DOE,

450: NASA grant NAG5-10842 at Fermilab, NSF grant PHY-0079251,

451: and the Center for Cosmological Physics at the University of

452: Chicago. XC thanks CITA, and ND thanks the ITP, for

453: hospitality while this work was carried out.}

454: 

455: \begin{thebibliography}{}

456: \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}

457: 

458: %\bibitem[Barber(2000)]{barber} Barber, A. 2000, \mnras, 318, 195

459: 

460: %\bibitem[Bartelmann \& Schneider(2001)]{bs01}

461: %Bartelmann, M. \& Schneider, P. 2001, \physrep, 340, 291

462: 

463: \bibitem[Bower(1991)]{bower} Bower, R. 1991, \mnras, 248, 322

464: 

465: \bibitem[Dalal \& Kochanek(2002a)]{dk1}

466: Dalal, N. \& Kochanek, C.\ S.\ 2002, \apj, 572, 25 

467: 

468: \bibitem[Dalal \& Kochanek(2002b)]{dk2}

469: Dalal, N. \& Kochanek, C.\ S.\ 2002, to appear in \prl, astro-ph/0202290

470: 

471: \bibitem[Eisenstein \& Hu(1999)]{eh99} 

472: Eisenstein, D.\ \& Hu, W.\ 1999, \apj, 511, 5

473: 

474: \bibitem[Frieman(1997)]{frieman97} Frieman, J. A. 1997,

475: Comments Astrophys., 18, 323

476: 

477: \bibitem[Jain \& Seljak(1997)]{jainseljak}

478: Jain, B. \& Seljak, U. 1997, \apj, 484, 560

479: 

480: %\bibitem[Jain et al.(1997)]{jsw} 

481: %Jain, B., Seljak, U., \& White, S. 2000, \apj, 530, 547

482: 

483: \bibitem[Holz(1998)]{holz98} Holz, D. E.\ 1998, \apj, 506, L1

484: 

485: \bibitem[Holz \& Wald(1998)]{hw98} Holz, D. E., \& Wald,

486: R. M. 1998, \prd, 58, 063501

487: 

488: \bibitem[Holz(2001)]{holz01} Holz, D. E.\ 2001, \apj, 556, L71

489: 

490: \bibitem[Hu(1999)]{hu_tomo} Hu, W.\ 1999, \apjl, 522, L21

491: 

492: \bibitem[Kaiser(1992)]{kaiser92} Kaiser, N. 1992, \apj, 388, 272

493: 

494: %\bibitem[Kaiser(1998)]{kaiser98} Kaiser, N. 1998, \apj, 498, 26

495: 

496: \bibitem[Kaiser \& Squires(1993)]{ks} 

497: Kaiser, N. \& Squires, G. 1993, \apj, 404, 441

498: 

499: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2000)]{snap} 

500: Kim, A., et al.\ 2000, SNAP satellite proposal, http://snap.lbl.gov

501: 

502: \bibitem[Lewis \& Ibata(2001)]{ibata} Lewis, G.\ F.\ \& Ibata, R.\ A.\

503: 2001, astro-ph/0104254, accepted to \mnras

504: 

505: \bibitem[Metcalf(1999)]{ben99} Metcalf, R. B. 1999, \mnras,

506: 305, 746

507: 

508: \bibitem[Metcalf \& Silk(1999)]{ms99} Metcalf, R. B., \&

509: Silk, J. 1999, \apjl, 519, L1

510: 

511: \bibitem[Metcalf(2001)]{ben01} Metcalf, R. B. 2001, \mnras,

512: 327, 115

513: 

514: \bibitem[Moertsell, Gunnarsson, \& Goobar(2001)]{moertsell} Moertsell, E., Gunnarsson,

515: C., \& Goobar, A.\ 2001, astro-ph/0105355

516: 

517: \bibitem[Peacock \& Dodds(1996)]{pd} 

518: Peacock, J. A.\ \& Dodds, S. J.\ 1996, \mnras, 280, L19

519: 

520: \bibitem[Perlmutter et al.(1999)]{scp} 

521: Perlmutter, S. et al.\ 1999, \apj, 517, 565

522: 

523: \bibitem[Phillips(1993)]{phillips} Phillips, M.\ M.\ 1993, \apj, 413, L105

524: 

525: %\bibitem[Riess et al.(1997)]{mcls} 

526: %Riess, A.\ G., et al. 1997, \aj, 114, 722

527: 

528: \bibitem[Riess et al.(1998)]{hzss} 

529: Riess, A.\ G., et al. 1998, \aj, 116, 1009

530: 

531: \bibitem[Riess et al.(2001)]{sn1997ff} 

532: Riess, A.\ G., et al. 2001, \apj, 560, 49

533: 

534: \bibitem[Seljak \& Holz(1999)]{seljakholz} 

535: Seljak, U.\ \& Holz, D. E. 1999, \aap, 351, L10

536: 

537: \bibitem[Van Waerbeke et al.(2001)]{waer}

538: Van Waerbeke, L., Hamana, T., Scoccimarro, R., Colombi, S.,

539: \& Bernardeau, F. 2001, \mnras, 322, 918

540: 

541: \bibitem[Wang(1999)]{wang} Wang, Y. 1999, \apj, 525, 651

542: 

543: \bibitem[Wang(2000)]{wangbin} Wang, Y.\ 2000, \apj, 536, 531 

544: 

545: \bibitem[Wang, Holz, \& Munshi(2002)]{whm02} Wang, Y., Holz, D. E., \&

546: Munshi, D.\ 2002, \apjl, 572, L15

547: 

548: \bibitem[White \& Hu(2000)]{whitehu}

549: White, M.\ \& Hu, W. 2000, \apj, 537, 1

550: 

551: \end{thebibliography}

552: 

553: \end{document}

554: